BJ 1025 
.P7 
1921 



Pass J*>xA ')fl?, r S 

Book „. , . 

Copyright^' 0 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSED 



RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY 



Fundamental Ethics 

An Ethical Analysis, Conducted by Way 
of Question and Answer 

for use in classes of moral philosophy 

BY 

WILLIAM POLAND, S. J. 

St. Louis University 




Loyola University Press 
chicago, illinois 



COPYRIGHT, 1921 

BY 

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY 
CHICAGO, ILL. 



JUL -5 '2.1 

©CLA617566 



PREFACE 



The following pages contain a condensed treatise on 
the general philosophy of morals. The character of the 
work is fully indicated in the title "Fundamental Ethics." 

An endeavor has been made, throughout, 1. To give 
short, clear definitions of all essential terms; 

2. To force into prominence the groundwork and 
principles of practical ethical science; 

3. To illustrate the abstract principles, when neces- 
sary, by examples from which their practical application 
in other cases may be readily inferred; 

4. To concentrate attention upon the fact that there 
are fixed principles of conduct. 

In the method employed, that of question and answer, 
the convenience, if not the need of beginners has been 
consulted. Students of ethics often spend much time 
upon concrete question whilst devoting very little to the 
principles that are necessary for the solution of those 
questions. Thus it is that in spite of their study they 
may remain with very vague views regarding many seri- 
ous matters ; whereas, had they but acquired a thorough 
understanding of the principles, their mastery of prac- 
tical problems would have been at once easy, rapid and 
secure. The direct question calls attention to important 
points which, in an undue haste to leave the abstract and 

3 



4 



PREFACE. 



take up the concrete, are too frequently accepted with- 
out examination. Yet the study of the concrete can never 
be scientific, and must always be uncertain in its con- 
clusions, if the worthiness of the principles upon which 
it is based has not been subjected to the proper test. 
With these truths in view, it has been judged that the 
method here applied to the ethics is the one that holds 
out greatest hope of ensuring most widely the aim of the 
book; since there is no scrutiny so exhaustive as the 
questioning analysis. 



CONTENTS 



Pace 

CHAPTER I. ETHICS AND MAN. 

Article I. Nature and Requirements of Ethics. 

Nature of Ethics — Previous truths to be admitted — 
The will of man, though free, is responsible to its 
Creator . 11 

Article II. Standard of Good and Evil. 

Good and evil — Right and wrong — How to find the 
standard — A fundamental fact and a consequence — 
The purpose of creation — The system of the universe 
— The order of nature — The order broken . . .13 

Article III. Man. 

Man — Body and soul a unit — Reason and free will in 
right and wrong .... ..... 16 

Article IV. The End and the Good. 

The end of anything — How found — Proximate, ulti- 
mate, and intermediate end — The "good" — The high- 
est good — All goods, for man, subordinated to the 
highest good, as all man's acts are subordinated to the 
highest exercise of the act peculiar to human nature . 17 



CHAPTER II. THE HUMAN ACT. 

Article I. The Human Act and the Innate Tendency. 

The human act — The act of the man — Knowledge and 
free will — The purpose — The final purpose — The mis- 
taken purpose — The good of reason — The good of the 

will — The innate tendency 20 

5 



6 



CONTENTS. 



Page 

Article II. The True and the Apparent Good. 

The choice of the will — The true good and the apparent 
good — Evil, as evil, never chosen — Two guiding rules 24 

Article III. Perfect Happiness. 

Perfect happiness — Desired by all — Attainable — Found 
in the possession of the highest good — Not attainable 
in this life — How to arrive at it 26 

Article IV. The Voluntary and the Free. 

Spontaneous action — Voluntary and involuntary act — 
Elicited and commanded act — The voluntary, indirect 
and virtual — Distinction between free and voluntary . 30 

Article V. Circumstances Affecting the Volutary. 

Ignorance and concupiscence — Violence and fear — In- 
vincible, vincible, and studied ignorance — A forced act 
— The voluntary in the habit 35 



CHAPTER III. MORALITY. 

Article I. Moral Good and Moral Evil. 

Morality — It belongs to the human act — Moral good 
and moral evil — The keeping or disturbing of the nat- 
ural order of things — Moral good and moral evil for 
man — The human act, morally good, keeps man directed 
towards his last end — The word "moral" . .41 

Article II. Determinants of Morality. 

Determinants of morality — Purpose, means, circum- 
stances — Circumstances : relevant, irrelevant, aggra- 
vating, extenuating, specifying — Act : when materially 
or f ormally bad — The intention or the desire not accom- 
plished — The indifferent act 44 

Article III. False Views. 

Opinion or human law does not affect the intrinsic mor- 
ality of an act — No rule of morality in atheism, pan- 
theism, materialism — The so-called "moral sense" . 49 



CONTENTS. 



7 



Page 



Article IV. Imputability. 

Imputability — Attributable and imputable — An act im- 
putable in so far as voluntary . . . .50 

CHAPTER IV. LAW. 

Article I. The Moral Law. 

Law — The moral law — Its binding force — Law, rule, 
precept — Characters of law — Law binding only when 
promulgated 52 

Article II. The Natural Law. 

The natural law — Its existence — Readily known — A 
special testimony — The natural law is divine — It is that 
part of the eternal law which applies to man's free acts 

— Natural law irrevocable, unchangeable . . .54 

Article III. Promulgation of the Natural Law. 

Natural law promulgated by reason — Reason is not the 
law — False position of Kant — How rectified — What is 
meant by the expression "law of reason" . . . .57 

Article IV. Obligation. 

Obligation — Physical and moral freedom — Foundation 
of obligation — Mistake of rationalists — Office of reason 

— Law prior to obligation 60 

Article V. Knowledge of the Natural Law. 

Knowledge of the natural law — Fundamental principles 

— Immediate and remote conclusions — The first prin- 
ciple . . . . . . . . . .63 

Article VI. Command and Prohibition. 

Affirmative and negative precepts — How they oblige . 65 

Article VII. Sanction of Law. 

Sanction — Sanction of the natural law — Natural con- 
sequence of violated law — Partial and complete sanction 

— Sanction known — Threefold sanction . . . .66 



s 



CONTENTS. 



Page 

Article VIII. Positive Law. 

Positive law — Its possibility — Divine and human — 
How known — Ultimate basis — Presupposes natural law 
— The unjust law — Ignorance in the transgressor of 
human law . . . .69 

Article IX. A Summary. 

Summary — Essential difference between natural and 
positive law — Natural law enforced by the civil law . 73 

CHAPTER V. MORAL CONSCIENCE. 

Article I. Moral Conscience. 

Moral conscience — True and false conscience — Culpa- 
bility and false conscience 75 

Article II. Moral Certainty and Doubt. 

Moral certainty — Inquiry — Invincible ignorance — 
Doubt — Examination — The unpromulgated law — An 
important restriction — Example — Education of con- 
science — "Feelings" are not conscience . . . .77 

CHAPTER VI. AIDS AND HINDRANCES TO 
OBSERVANCE OF MORAL ORDER. 

Article I. The Passions. 

The passions — Of the sensitive order — An instrument 
of the will — Not our guide — Why called bad — The 



primary passions . 81 

Article II. Habits: Virtues, Vices. 

Habits — An act and a habit — A moral habit — Virtue 
and vice — The cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, forti- 
tude, temperance 86 

CHAPTER VII. SOME ERRORS. 

Sentimentalism — Sensism — Sensualism — Positivism — Util- 
itarianism 90 



CONTENTS. 



9 



Page 

CHAPTER VIII. DUTY AND RIGHT. 

Duty and right — Moral obligation and moral power — Free 

will under law — Our essential relations . . . .93 

CHAPTER IX. RIGHTS. 

Article I. Basis and Nature of Rights. 

Law the principle of right and duty — Enforcing of 
rights — Impeded right — Inviolable moral power — Sub- 
ject, term, matter, and title of right 96 

Article II. Partition of Rights. 

Innate and acquired rights — Alienable and inalienable 
rights 98 

CHAPTER X. DUTIES. 

Duty — Its source — Natural and positive duties — Negative 
and affirmative duties — Motive of duty — Perfect and 
imperfect duties — Term of a duty 101 

CHAPTER XI. COLLISION OF RIGHTS. 

Article I. Collision . .106 

Article II. Summary of Cases 108 

Article III. Some Principles .112 

CHAPTER XII. VINDICATION OF RIGHTS. 

Vindication — Perfect rights — Repelling the aggressor — 
The use of force — The rule of defence — Reparation of 
an injury — The use of force — Appeal to authority . 118 

CHAPTER XIII. ARGUMENT OF THE WORK. 

Argument of the Work 123 

Index 133 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS 



CHAPTER I. ETHICS AND MAN. 



Article I. Nature and Requirements of Ethics. 

Nature of Ethics — Previous Truths to be Known — The 
Will of Man, Free and Responsible. 

1. Q. What is ethics? 

A. The science of the rule of right and wrong. 

2. Q. Why is it called a science? 

A. Because it gives the rule and the reason for the 
rule. 

3. Q. What truths must be taken as a foundation by 
one who would study ethics? 

A. Sound ethics must be based on sound metaphys- 
ics. Sound ethics, therefore, must start by recognizing, 
especially, — 

(1) The existence of one God, omnipotent, creator, 
infinitely wise and just ; 

(2) The finite nature of man, composed of animal 
body and rational soul, which form one person ; 

(3) The veracity of the faculties; 

(4) The immortality of the human soul ; 

(5) The liberty of the human will. 

11 



12 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



4. Q. Are these truths proved anywhere in philoso- 
phy? 

A. Yes: they are proved in logic and in general and 
special metaphysics. 

5. Q. Why are these truths required as a basis in 
ethics ? 

A. Because (1) To deny the existence of God would 
be to deny the binding force of all law upon the will of 
man. 

(2) To deny man's finite composite nature would be 
to deny him to be what he is and hence to deny the pur- 
pose of ethics. 

(3) To deny the truthfulness of the faculties would 
be to doubt everything and thus render all reasoning 
useless. 

(4) To deny the immortality of the soul would be to 
take away the final safeguard for the observance of the 
rule of right and wrong. 

(5) To deny human liberty would be to deny all re- 
sponsibility on the part of man; and hence to deny the 
very distinction between right and wrong in the human 
act. 

6. Q. Do we here treat ethics, right and wrong, from 
the side of supernatural revelation? 

A. No: we treat it as it is knowable by natural 
means, as natural knowledge. And we do not enter into 
the question how T far our natural knowledge has been 
preserved free from error by supernatural revelation. 

7. Q. For whom or for what is this rule of which 
we speak ? 

A. For the human will. 

8. Q. Is this rule a law? 

A. Yes: as we shall see later on. 



ETHICS AND MAN. 



13 



9. Q. But, if the human will is free, how can it be 
subject to a law? 

A. That question touches the keynote of ethics. 

10. Q. How does it touch the keynote of ethics? 

A. Because there is no such thing as ethics unless 
we recognize man to be both free and responsible, at the 
same time: free with the physical power to use his will 
one way or another, responsible for the way in which he 
uses it. 

11. Q. To whom can a free will be responsible for 
the use of its free choice? 

A. To the one sole Being who has authority over a 
free created will, to its Author, God. 



Article II. Standard of Good and Evil. 

Good and Evil; Right and Wrong — How to Find the 
Standard — A Fundamental Fact and a Consequence — 
The Purpose of Creation — The System of the Universe 
— The Order of Nature — The Order Broken. 

12. Q. Is the rule of right and wrong, then, simply 
the will of God in such sense that no matter what a 
thing is in itself, it can become good to-day and evil 
to-morrow, merely as God orders or forbids it? 

A. Not so fast. There are things which are in them- 
selves good, and things which are in themselves evil. 
That which is in itself good can never become in itself 
evil. That which is in itself evil can never become 
in itself good. There is a standard of good and evil — 
right and wrong, — an unfailing standard. God cannot 
but wish us to choose the good and reject the evil. His 
will, however, is law for the created will. Hence the 



14 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



rule of right and wrong becomes law for the human 
will. 

13. Q. How shall we find the standard of good and 
evil — right and wrong? 

A. By studying the nature of things. 

14. Q. Does "good and evil" mean the same as 
"right and wrong"? 

A. Not precisely. "Good" and "evil" refer to that 
to which the will may be directed, which the will may 
choose. "Right" and "wrong" refer to the act of the 
will, willing, choosing the good or the evil. Still the 
words are often substituted for one another. We are 
accustomed, in conversation, to call "good" "right," and 
"evil" "wrong," because it is right to will the good and 
wrong to will the evil. 

15. Q. How then shall we discover what is good 
and what is evil? 

A. By studying the nature of things. 

16. Q. Will not this be an endless study? 

A. No. What we want is a standard; and this we 
can get by taking account of some general principles. 

17. Q. How must we begin? 

A. By recognizing the fact of creation. In laying 
the foundation of ethics, it is absolutely necessary to 
keep steadily in mind the fact of creation by a Creator 
infinite in wisdom and in justice. 

18. Q. What follows from this fact? 

A. It follows that an infinitely wise Creator must 
have had a purpose in creating; for it is not the part of 
wisdom to act without a purpose. 

19. 0. What is the general final purpose of the 
whole creation? 

A. The general final purpose of the whole creation 



ETHICS AND MAN. 



15 



must be something that refers to the Creator himself ; 
for there is nothing beneath him that could be counted 
worthy of his action. Moreover, this same final pur- 
pose of the whole creation, taken as a unit, must of 
course be the final purpose of the existence of each indi- 
vidual being in the creation. 

20. Q. How can each individual thing in creation 
tend to this final purpose? 

A. Each individual thing in creation has its own 
peculiar special nature, with a special kind of action 
adapted thereto, and it can tend to the final purpose 
only by the orderly exercise of that peculiar nature 
placed in it by the Creator. 

21. Q. What do we call the combination of the 
various beings of the created universe in their various 
relations to one another? 

A. We call it the system of the universe. 

22. Q. What do we call the proper subordination of 
these various parts of this system, and the subordinated 
harmony of these multifarious natures? 

A. We call it the order of nature. 

23. Q. How does each being contribute to the order 
of nature? 

A. By acting according to its own nature. 

24. Q. Are there beings that can act contrary to 
their own nature? 

A. Yes. 

25. Q. What beings are they? 

A. Those that have free will — that is ourselves — 
human beings. 



16 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



Article III. Man. 

Man — Body and Soul a Unit — Reason and Free Will in 
Right and Wrong 

26. Q. What is a human being? 

A. The human being, called man, is a composite 
being, made up of a material animal body and a spiritual 
soul. This spiritual soul is endowed with reason and 
free will. 

27. Q: Is not man then two beings? 

A. No. Spiritual and animal nature conspire in him 
to form the person, the unit, the man, governable by 
reason and free will. 

28. Q. When does man act according to his nature? 
A. When he acts according to reason with free will; 

that is, when he acts freely, deliberately, according to his 
reason. 

29. Q. What is it to act according to reason? 

A. It is to do that which reason points out to be in 
keeping with the nature of things. 

30. Q. What is it to act according to reason with 
free will? 

A. It is to will deliberately that which reason points 
out to be in keeping with the nature of things. 

31. Q. What, then, once more, do we mean by right 
and wrong? 

A. Right and wrong refer to the direction of the will. 
We are said to do right when, after reason has pointed 
out something to be in keeping with the nature of things, 
we deliberately direct our will towards that something 
whether by choice, desire, approval, command, etc. We 
are said to do wrong, when we deliberately direct our 



ETHICS AND MAN. 



17 



wills by choice, desire, approval, command, etc., to that 
which reason shows us to be a perversion of the order 
of things. 



Article IV. The End and the Good. 

The End of Anything — How Found — Proximate, Ultimate, 
Intermediate End — The "Good" — The Highest Good — 
All Goods, for Man, Subordinated to the Highest Good, 
as All Man's Acts Are Subordinated to the Highest Ex- 
ercise of the Act Peculiar to Human Nature. 

32. Q. It has been said that the final purpose of each 
individual in the creation is the same as the final pur- 
pose of the whole creation. Has each individual in the 
creation also an immediate or proximate end of its ex- 
istence ? 

A. Yes. Since each individual in the creation has 
its own peculiar nature, this was given to it by the 
Creator to be exercised in its own peculiar manner : and 
the exercise of this nature or activity is the immediate 
or proximate end of its existence. 

33. Q. What is meant by an end of anything? 
A. The purpose for which it exists. 

34. Q. How can this purpose be discovered? 

A. By studying the nature of the thing in question. 

35. Q. Whose purpose is this? 

A. The purpose of the Creator who gave things their 
nature. 

36. Q. Are there various divisions of ends or pur- 
poses ? 

A. Yes. For, one purpose intended may be intended 



18 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



for another purpose ; and this for a third ; and the third 
for a fourth ; and so on. 

37. Q. What is the first one intended (the nearest) 
called ? 

A. The proximate end. 

38. Q. What is the last one intended (the farthest 
off) called? 

A. The ultimate end. If there be but one end in- 
tended, it is of course first and last, or proximate and 
ultimate. 

39. Q. What do we call any purpose which is di- 
rected to a further purpose ? 

A. An intermediate end or a means. 

40. Q. What do we call the object which serves as 
the material upon which any natural power or activity 
exercises itself? 

A. We call it the good of that power. Thus light is 
the good of vision; sound, of hearing; truth, of intelli- 
gence, etc. Sound cannot be called good for sight, nor 
light for hearing. 

41. Q. When an object is found which fills the high- 
est capacity for action of a being, what is such object 
called ? 

A. Such object is called the highest good of that being, 
its summum bonum. 

42. Q. How then is it with man? Since he pos- 
sesses within himself so many faculties of different 
orders, — of the animal order and of the purely spiritual 
order, — has each of them its own good? 

A. If we consider the separate faculties or capacities 
for action independently of one another, and independ- 
ently of the person, man, to whom they belong, then of 
course each one has its own peculiar object upon which 



ETHICS AND MAN. 



19 



it is good for such faculty to exercise itself. But we 
must remember that the faculties are not things inde- 
pendent and by themselves, but are for the person, the 
compound, man, taken as a unit, to whom they belong. 
They are subordinated to the compound in their exist- 
ence. Hence they are naturally subordinated in their 
exercise, to the exercise of the compound, man, taken as 
a unit. Hence their exercise upon their objects will be 
good even for them only as subordinated to the exercise 
of the activity peculiar to the compound being, man. 

43. Q. What is the proper, peculiar action of the 
composite being, man, called? 

A. A human action — a human act. 



CHAPTER II. THE HUMAN ACT. 



Article I. The Human Act and the Innate 
Tendency. 

The Human Act — The Act of the Man — Knowledge and 
Free Will — The Purpose — The Final Purpose — The 
Mistaken Purpose — The Good of Reason — The Good of 
the Will — The Innate Tendency. 

44. Q. What is a human act? 

A. A human act is an act performed by man with 
knowledge and free will. 

45. Q. Is every act of man a human act? 

A. Not every act of man is a human act, because 
not every act of man is performed with knowledge and 
free will. 

46. Q. It was said that the final purpose of the ex- 
istence and action of man is a purpose that is in the will 
of the Creator. Now as man is endowed with intelli- 
gence and free will — to know and to choose — can he 
also set himself a purpose in his acts ? 

A. Yes. 

47. Q. When man acts without purpose can we call 
his act a human act? 

A. No. Because he does not bring into play those 
very faculties, intelligence, and free will, which charac- 
terize him as a human being. 

20 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



21 



48. Q. What then do you call such an act performed 
without a purpose, that is, performed without intelli- 
gence or free will? 

A. It is called simply an act of the man, but not a 
human act. This is the case whenever either knowledge 
or free will is wanting. Thus, when persons talk in 
their sleep, they do not perform human acts because 
they do not know what they are doing. On the other 
hand, a person may stumble and fall. He really falls. 
He knows at the time that he is falling, but the falling 
is not the result of his free will; it is against his will. 
The act is not a human act. Again, a person may drink 
poison, thinking it to be pure water. He knows that he 
is drinking and drinks of his own free will. In so far, 
therefore, as the mere drinking is concerned, there may 
be said to be a human act. But he neither knows that he 
is drinking poison nor does he will to drink poison. 
Hence his drinking poison is not a human act. He knows 
and wills the drinking, but not the drinking poison. 

49. Q. What is the purpose for which man acts in 
a human action? 

A. Always something which the will chooses to attain 
as presented to it by the understanding. 

50. Q. Can the will aim at one purpose for the sake 
of attaining a further end, and this for a third, and 
so on? 

A. Yes, the will can keep on intending a further pur- 
pose, a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, and so on, until there 
is no further purpose, that is, until it reaches a final end 
or purpose. 

51. Q. What end or purpose does the will propose 
to itself in willing? 

A. The will is free and can intend various purposes. 



22 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



52. O. But is there not some common purpose in- 
tended by all the acts of the will? 

A. Yes, the will always proposes some good of the 
person willing. 

53. Q. Is this good always the good of the whole 
man, the person taken as a unit ? 

A. No. It may be the good of a single faculty, of a 
single capacity, whose action, at the time or in the man- 
ner chosen, may be detrimental to the whole man taken 
as a unit. Just as in the case of the animal body, a man 
may will the satisfaction of his palate in a degree or at 
a time that will make the acquisition of such local and 
partial good, really detrimental to the whole body; so 
in regard to the entire man, the will may choose some 
individual good of a particular faculty that will be detri- 
mental to the unit, the human being, the composite per- 
sonality of the man. 

54. Q. When does the willing of a particular good 
become detrimental to the good of the human being? 

A. Whenever it interferes with the acquisition of the 
goods that are suitable for the activities that charac- 
terize the human being as a human being ? 

55. Q. Which activities are these? 

A. Reason, and free will under the guidance of 
reason. 

56. Q. What object constitutes the good of reason? 
A. Truth. 

57. Q. Is it this or that particular truth regarding 
the things about us ? 

A. No. Because this or that particular truth will not 
fill the capacity of the mind for knowing. 

58. Q. Will it then be the collection of truths rea- 
soned out one after another ? 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



23 



A. No, for thus we should never get through. There 
would always be something more to know and our 
capacity would ever remain unsatisfied. Now, we can- 
not admit that an infinitely wise Creator gave man an 
endless tendency which could not possibly attain its 
object. 

59. Q. What then? 

A. Then it follows that there must be some one ob- 
ject which of itself constitutes the good of reason; which 
must be attainable by reason; and which, being known, 
will fill the capacity of the mind for knowing. 

60. Q. But is such object attainable by reason? 

A. It must be, or we shall have to admit that an 
infinitely wise Creator created man without an object, 
that is to say, put in him a tendency at once inevitable 
and insatiable. 

61. Q. What constitutes the good of the will? 

A. The real good of the will must be that which is 
the good of the person to whom the will belongs. The 
will is a blind faculty. It has nothing to do but to 
choose, and to command the other faculties in keeping 
with its choice. 

Every being in the Creation has an innate tendency 
to its own peculiar good, and no innate tendency to 
any other good. No being in creation can act directly 
against this tendency for the simple reason that it is not 
endowed with the power so to act. 



24 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



Article II. The True and the Apparent Good. 

The Choice of the Will— The True Good and the Apparent 
Good — Evil, as Evil, Never Chosen — Two Guiding 
Rules. 

62. Q. If every being in the creation has an innate 
tendency to its own peculiar good, and if no being can 
act directly against this tendency, how does it come to 
pass that man does, sometimes, choose that which is not 
the good of the entire personality of man, taken as a 
unit? 

A. To understand this we must remember that the 
will does not see for itself. It chooses only upon the 
representation of the intelligence. Now ignorance, preju- 
dice, passion, may go far towards giving a bias to the 
mind and putting out in strong light the good of a part 
of the man, of a single faculty, and hiding the good of 
the whole being. 

We must distinguish between the true good and the 
apparent good of anything. The true good is the object 
suited to perfect the whole being by giving play to 
the faculties in whose exercise lies the perfecting of 
such being; or we may say that their very exercise is 
the true good of such being. Hence if we have a 
being composed of various parts which conspire to 
make one specific entity, the true good of that being 
cannot be the good of any particular part or faculty, 
but it must be that which is the good of the whole 
being. Hence as in such a being each particular part 
will have its own special nature, hence its own special 
mode of action, and hence its own special proximate 
end, and hence its own special suitable good; and just 
as these special natural modes of action must be sub- 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



25 



ordinated to one another to produce the proper resultant 
which is the true natural action of the whole being, so 
in like manner are the respective goods subordinated to 
one another. The true good of the being will be what 
perfects the being considered as a unit. That which 
perfects only one or another part or faculty, considered 
separately and apart from the view of the whole, is but 
an apparent good. Hence it is, that the natural special 
end of any being and its highest good must be sought 
from the knowledge of the complete specific nature of 
that being; from the sum of all its faculties in proper 
subordination ; from the natural resultant tendency which 
is the specific tendency of that being. 

63. Q. Does the will then never choose evil under 
the aspect of evil? 

A. Never. When that which it chooses is really 
detrimental to the person, it chooses the same under 
the aspect of good, as an apparent good, the reason 
being averted whether wilfully or not from the consid- 
eration of the true nature of the thing as evil. 

64. Q. But if the reason is averted wilfully, is not 
there then a direct choice of evil as evil? 

A. Not even then. For the attraction to the lower 
good may be so powerful on account of habit formed 
by yielding to passion, etc., that the will to avoid resist- 
ance may permit or order the reason to present the par- 
ticular good in the strongest light. 

65. Q. What two guiding rules may be drawn from 
what has been said thus far ? 

A. First: that the nature of a being, whether a free 
being or not, is the immediate rule for the correct action 
of that being, to make the continuous existence of that 
being in harmony with the system of the universe and 



26 FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 

not a disturbance in the order of nature. Second: that 
as there is wisdom in the system of the universe, there 
must be an object for each specific being; and each 
being following the rule of its specific nature can attain 
its object, its suitable good, its last end, its highest good. 



Article III. Perfect Happiness. 

Perfect Happiness — Desired by All — Attainable — Found 
in the Possession of the Highest Good — Not Attainable 
in This Life — How to Arrive at It. 

66. Q. When man, acting as man, attains the object 
which constitutes the good of reason, that is, truth be- 
yond which there is no enquiring, and the object that 
constitutes the good of the person, what is the result? 

A. Perfect happiness, the ultimate perfection of the 
free rational nature by its exercise upon an object ade- 
quate to its capacity. 

67. Q. Is there a standard of happiness, that is to 
say, is it the same in kind for all men? 

A. Yes; because human nature is the same in kind 
in all men, and happiness is the final perfection of human 
nature. 

68. Q. Is perfect happiness desired by all men? 

A. Yes. This desire is natural. It is simply the 
natural tendency of human nature, as everything in the 
universe has its natural tendency. We use the word 
happiness simply as a special word expressing the object 
of the tendency of human nature. This inevitable ten- 
dency is proved by each one's experience and by the 
unanimous consent of mankind. We may indeed turn 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



27 



our minds away from the consideration of perfect hap- 
piness, but considering it we cannot have a feeling of 
aversion to it, for this would require that there would 
be in it something which could be presented to us as 
disagreeable to possess. 

69. Q. Can this perfect happiness be attained in this 
life? 

A. No; because no thing nor any combination of 
things as attainable in this life, can fully satisfy this 
essential, radical, primary tendency of human nature. 

70. Q. Must this perfect happiness nevertheless be 
attainable by all men ? 

A. Yes ; unless we wish to say that the Creator has 
given to man an inevitable tendency towards an impos- 
sibility. It would be absurd to hold this even with re- 
gard to one man, for human nature is the same in kind 
in all men. 

71. Q. How long will such state of happiness last? 
A. It must be a state that will last forever. And the 

one who reaches it must possess it with a certainty that 
it shall not end. For if in the possession of a happiness 
there were even a suspicion that it might end, this w^ould 
take away from it the character of perfect happiness, 
since something beyond would be desired. 

72. Q. What do we call that object the possession of 
which will constitute man in the state of perfect happi- 
ness? 

A. It is called his highest good. It is also called his 
last end, because he cannot tend to anything beyond, 
nor propose to himself anything beyond. 

73. Q. Cannot riches constitute this last end or 
highest good. 

A. No; because, as we said, the highest good must 
be attainable by all men and few can acquire riches. 



28 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



Then, even though all might acquire them, the mere 
possession of them cannot constitute happiness; they 
are, at best, only a means to a further purpose. Besides 
they are not permanent with any one. They must be 
resigned at death ; and even whilst they are possessed, 
their possession is attended with anxiety. 

74. Q. Could not honor be the highest good? 

A. No : it is not in the power of all men ; it is a very 
unreliable possession; and it is altogether external and 
adds nothing to the possessor. 

75. Q. Could human science be the highest good? 
A. No; it is not within the reach of all. And then 

how little even one great mind can master ! 

76. Q. Can pleasure itself be called the highest good? 
A. Certainly not sense-pleasure. This debases the 

rational nature of man. Besides, pleasure, even intel- 
lectual pleasure, is something that follows from the 
possession of the good, and does not constitute it. 

77. Q. Cannot virtue constitute the highest good? 
A. No; not even virtue. Virtue is only the right 

direction of the will and the other powers, in keeping 
with the two great rules (No. 65). Hence it cannot be 
that to which they are directed. 

78. Q. What concclusion have we to draw from all 
this ? 

A. This conclusion: that, as perfect happiness must 
be attainable, yet is not attainable in this life, it must 
be attainable in another life. 

79. Q. What is this higest good? 

A. It must be an object which contains truth, beyond 
which there is no knowing; and good, beyond which 
there is no willing. 

80. Q. What is this object? 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



29 



A. God alone, infinite truth and infinite good. 

81. Q. Could there not be two highest goods or last 
ends ? 

A. No ; for, either one would leave something be- 
yond, and thus would not be highest or last. The one 
highest good is absolutely necessary and fully sufficient 
to constitute happiness. 

82. Q. What then is the relation between this life 
and the other life in which man can obtain that perfect 
possession of the highest good which constitutes perfect 
happiness ? 

A. Since we cannot have perfect happiness here, then 
the absence of it must be either a privation incurred 
by some act of each one of us ; or it must be, that, 
as we are free beings, we are to do something by our 
own free action towards the obtaining of perfect happi- 
ness. The first cannot be said, therefore the second 
remains to be held. The relation of this life towards 
the other is therefore that of a journey towards the 
terminus. 

83. Q. What then have we to do? 

A. To act up to the dignity of human nature. We 
must observe freely what reason points out to be the true 
order of things ; keep our purposes in proper subordina- 
tion; subject ourselves freely, as created beings, to the 
will of the Creator. 

84. Q. But can we not attain partial happiness in 
this life? 

A. Yes. But we must not forget the distinction be- 
tween the true and the apparent good. True, partial 
happiness will be only in the choice of the true good ; 
in the direct, deliberate tendency to such possession of 
the highest good as cannot ever have an end. 



30 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



Article IV. The Voluntary and the Free. 

Spontaneous Action — Voluntary and Involuntary Act — 
Elicited and Commanded Act — The Voluntary, Indirect, 
and Virtual — Distinction Between Free and Voluntary. 

85. Q. What have we seen thus far? 

A. We have seen that the final purpose of the exist- 
ence of man is a purpose of the Creator. This purpose 
must be something which regards the Creator. It can- 
not be anything to be added intrinsically to the Creator 
who is infinite. It must therefore be extrinsic. It is 
called the external glory of God, the knowledge and 
love of him, infinite Truth and infinite Good, by the 
created intelligence and will. Thus God's purpose, his 
external glory, is found precisely in that w T hich consti- 
tutes the perfect happiness of man, the exercise of the 
distinctively human faculties upon the highest good of 
the human being. This perfect happiness cannot be 
attained in this life. We cannot know the highest truth 
as we would wish to know it; we cannot, on account of 
the attraction of lower goods, fix our w T ill on the highest 
good in such way as to be sure that some time we shall 
not turn away from it. However, the highest good 
must be absolutely attainable in such way as to produce 
perfect happiness. This must be in another life. The 
immediate purpose of man's existence here is to tend 
to the final purpose by his own free will. This he has 
to do by acts distinctively human, by human acts. We 
shall have to make a further investigation of the human 
act. 

86. O. What, once more, is the human act? 

A. That act is called a human act which is per- 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



31 



formed by a human being, with knowledge of the nature 
of the act and with free will. 

87. Q. What is a spontaneous action? 

A. A spontaneous action is one that is performed 
without intellectual deliberation; as when a person 
draws his hand rapidly away from fire. It was an action 
performed, as we say, by instinct, and may be found 
in the brute animals. Man might, however, after delib- 
erating, apply his hand again to the fire : the brute is 
incapable of any such action. Man, so applying his 
hand, would perform a voluntary act. 

88. Q. What is a voluntary act? 

A. It is an act performed with intellectual knowledge 
of the case in question; and with the direction of the 
will to it as so understood. 

89. Q. When is an act involuntary? 

A. An act is involuntary when it is done either with- 
out knowledge of the case in question ; or, if with 
knowledge, still against the choice of the will. Thus 
one man may take another's umbrella, thinking it to 
be his own. He does not voluntarily take another's 
umbrella; because, not knowing it to be another's, his 
will is not directed to the taking of another's umbrella. 
Or, again, a man may wish to close his eyes and not 
to see. Somebody may keep his eyes open by force, 
and oblige him to see. He sees ; he knows he is seeing : 
but it is against his will. The act of seeing is not 
voluntary. 

90. Q. Can an act from which there is no escape 
become voluntary? 

A. Yes ; so soon as the will approves, the act becomes 
voluntary. 

91. Q. Can an act be voluntary and yet be per- 
formed with some reluctance? 



32 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



A, Yes; as when a merchant, in a storm at sea, to 
escape from shipwreck, throws his cargo overboard. 
He knows fully what he is doing; and chooses to do 
it under the circumstances. He wills to make the sacri- 
fice in view of what he considers a greater good — the 
saving of his life. The same happens when one takes 
a bitter potion to free himself from sickness. He has 
a repugnance for the medicine ; still he acts with knowl- 
edge and consent. 

92. Q. How are voluntary acts divided? 

A. Into elicited and commanded acts. An act which 
is in the will alone — which is performed solely by the 
will, as an act of love or hatred, is called an elicited act. 
An act that is performed by some other power, under 
the command of the will, is called a commanded act. 

93. Q. Does the voluntariness of an act admit of 
degrees ? 

A. We may say that it does admit of degrees in the 
sense that there may be degrees of advertence to the 
nature of the act. Thus one who is half asleep or dis- 
tracted will not have so clear a perception as will one 
who is perfectly attentive or wide awake; and his acts 
will not be regarded as in the same degree voluntary. 

94. Q. Can an act be indirectly voluntary? 

A. Yes. For though it may not be either elicited or 
commanded, directly, by the will, it may be forseen as 
following from a voluntary act or omission. Thus the 
casting of the cargo overboard was directly voluntary; 
the consequences foreseen as resulting, indirectly vol- 
untary. 

95. Q. When is an act said to be virtually voluntary? 
A. When it continues to be performed by virtue of, 

that is, by reason of a prior act of the will, even though 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



33 



we may have forgotten that the act is still being per- 
formed. We start out with a companion to walk to a 
certain place. We get into a conversation, and forget 
whither we are going. Still, we continue on the way 
in virtue of the act of the will previously made. 

96. Q. Which are the elicited acts of the will? 

A. Love, desire, hope, content; and their opposites, 
hatred, aversion, despair, sadness. 

Love is mere complacency in the good. 
Desire is the wish for that good. 

Hope is the elation of the will, when the desired good 
is seen to be attainable. 

Content is what follows the possession of the good. 

Hatred is displeasure at the sight or remembrance of 
evil. 

Aversion is the turning of the will from evil, or it is 
desire co escape the evil. 

Despair is depression of the will, at seeing the evil to 
be unavoidable, or at seeing the desired good to be un- 
attainable. 

Sadness is the condition of the will when the impend- 
ing evil befalls or the desired good is lost. 

97. Q. Which are commanded acts ? 

A. All those acts are called commanded acts, which 
the human person can perform at the command of the 
will. The will can command the intellect, the imagina- 
tion, the memory, the external senses, the power of loco- 
motion, etc. The will cannot command the vegetative 
powers of the body. 

98. Q. Does "free act" mean precisely the same as 
"voluntary act" ? 

A. Not precisely. We can understand how an act 
might be entirely voluntary, that is, altogether accord- 



34 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



ing to the inclination of the will, yet not so free that the 
will could choose to have it omitted, or to do the con- 
trary. Thus by the very necessity of our nature we 
must have a sort of general tendency towards our 
highest good and hence towards perfect happiness, so 
much so that it is not in our power to really wish delib- 
erately to be absolutely miserable. This general wish 
for happiness motives all our acts. It is not free ; we 
cannot choose misery as such. Yet though not free, it 
is voluntary; for it is an act of the will, is approved of 
by the will with knowledge of the case. It is to be 
specially noted, however, that, with the exception of 
this one particular instance, every voluntary act in our 
present state of existence is also a free act. This does 
not contradict what was said in Xo. 90. There the act 
up to the moment of approval was a purely forced act. 
From that moment it became equivalent by acceptance 
to a free commanded act. If we consider that other life 
with the highest good once attained and perfect happi- 
ness secured, then the enjoyment of that happiness will 
certainly be voluntary, for it will be an act of the will 
with full approbation and full knowledge of the case. 
Yet it will not be free. And why? Because then the 
will shall not be able to choose otherwise. The happi- 
ness will be perfect with the knowledge that it is per- 
fect; so that the intellect cannot present to the will 
anything as containing an element wanting to its highest 
good or to its perfect happiness. 

Having called attention to these two exceptions it 
will be understood that henceforth we use the word 
'voluntary" and "free" in the same sense. For in every 
other case the will is free to approve or not. 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



35 



Article V. Circumstances Affecting the 
Voluntary. 

Ignorance and Concupiscence — Violence and Fear — Invin- 
cible, Vincible, and Studied Ignorance — A Forced Act — 
The Voluntary in the Habit. 

99. Q. What circumstances can affect or diminish 
the voluntariness or freedom of an act? 

A. Those that can affect either element required in 
the free act: namely, knowledge or free inclination of 
the will. 

100. Q. What can affect the knowledge? 
A. Ignorance and concupiscence. 

101. Q. What can affect the free inclination of the 
will? 

A. Violence and fear. 

102. Q. What is ignorance ? 
A. Absence of knowledge. 

103. Q. What knowledge may be wanting? 
A. (1) Knowledge of the nature of an act; 

(2) Knowledge of a law commanding or prohibiting 
the act ; 

(3) Knowledge of a penalty for doing or omitting the 
act. 

104. Q. When is ignorance said to be invincible? 
A. When it cannot be overcome by an investigation 

proportioned to the importance of the matter in ques- 
tion; or, when a suspicion of truth to be searched for 
does not enter the mind. 

105. Q. When is ignorance said to be vincible? 

A. When the lack of knowledge is adverted to, 
and can be corrected by taking such time and pains 



36 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



in searching, as may be due to the gravity of the 
case. 

106. Q. What effect has invincible ignorance upon 
an act? 

A. The act, so far as this invincible ignorance ex- 
tends, cannot be voluntary. Such act, to the extent of 
the invincible ignorance, is not a human act. It lacks 
the two elements of the human act. It is neither known 
nor willed. 

107. Q. Can you give an easy illustration of this? 
A. Yes. We will suppose that a man makes an 

engagement for a certain hour. Other things, of course, 
occupy his attention in the meantime; and, without his 
fault or guilty neglect, the engagement passes entirely 
out of his mind. He has not a suspicion of the engage- 
ment or the hour. Or, again, he makes an engagement, 
say, for ten o'clock. He looks at his watch, a correct 
time-piece. It is half-past nine. He looks again. It 
is twenty minutes to ten. He has ample time, needing 
but ten minutes. He starts off, but he arrives too late. 
His watch had already been stopped five minutes. The 
mainspring had been broken. He thought he had leisure 
and took his time. He had exercised sufficient care to 
meet his engagement. In both cases there was invincible 
ignorance. The breaking of the engagement was not a 
human act in either case. 

108. Q. Does the same hold for the positive act? 
A. The same holds for the positive act as well as for 

the omission. A man shoots at a bear. The bear is 
just about to climb a slanting tree. It does not occur 
to the man to examine whether any one is in a danger- 
ous position. It is a wild, uninhabited place, where he 
has not met any one for a week. Or, he does indeed 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



37 



examine carefully and finds no one near. He calls out 
and gets no answer. In each case (in the second, for 
greater security,) he determines to send the ball through 
the bear and into the tree. The ball kills the bear, and 
it also kills a man hidden in the tree, which, though ap- 
parently sound, was decayed and hollow. In either case 
the killing of the man was not a human act. Invincible 
ignorance prevented it from being voluntary. 

109. Q. Does vincible ignorance prevent an act from 
being voluntary ? 

A. No. For when one adverts to his ignorance, and 
does not take such measures to correct it as the gravity 
of the case demand, he thereby voluntarily accepts the 
consequences that follow from neglect of the care due 
to the gravity of the case. 

110. Q. Does vincible ignorance diminish the volun- 
tary nature of an act? 

A. Vincible ignorance may be affected, studied, aimed 
at, for the sake of not knowing the case, and this cer- 
tainly does not diminish the voluntariness of an act 
done in such ignorance. Vincible ignorance may, how- 
ever, not be studied, it may be the result of slothfulness ; 
one does not want to go to the trouble of an investiga- 
tion. We do not suppose that the person here has the 
will to choose one way or the other. If he knew the 
right he would do it; but he is too lazy to examine. 
Hence, if he does wrong, it is voluntary in his voluntary 
ignorance. In the previous case of affected ignorance 
we suppose the person's will to be fixed upon acting in 
one particular way. He suspects, indeed, that it may 
be wrong, but he keeps himself in ignorance that he 
may not act with the certainty that he is doing wrong. 
It is easy to see that if the wrong is done in this studied 



38 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



ignorance it is fully voluntary. If wrong is done simply 
because a person is too slothful to find out the right, 
the ignorance is also fully voluntary; still the wrong 
done in it is not so voluntary as in the case of affected 
ignorance. For the man would choose what is right if 
he knew it, but he is too slothful to enquire. 

111. Q. What is concupiscence? 

A. It is the tendency of the senses towards sensible 
pleasures. 

112. Q. Does this tendency diminish voluntariness 
in the choice of sensible pleasure ? 

A. Certainly not, if the tendency is stimulated by a 
free act of the will. But when the tendency is stimu- 
lated independently of the will, against the will, then 
the will finds itself confronted by a resistance not of its 
own creation, and which requires an effort on the part 
of the will to master. In proportion as the vehemence 
of the unsought tendency grows greater, in the same 
proportion is the effort required to resist, greater; and 
in this sense is the voluntariness of an act of the will 
yielding, said to diminish. However, the liberty of the 
will is never totally destroyed, unless the solicitation be 
so strong as to hinder the free use of reason. 

113. Q. What is fear? 

A. Fear is a disturbance of the mind arising from 
impending evil. 

114. Q. Does an act done through fear cease to be 
voluntary ? 

A. Not unless the fear destroys the right use of 
reason. 

115. Q. In what sense or when can fear be said to 
affect the voluntariness of an act? 

A. In this sense: that, w r ere it not for the fear, the 



THE HUMAN ACT. 



39 



act would not be willed. The act is not at all desired 
in itself, but only as a means to escape from an evil 
that is feared. Thus, a merchant in a storm at sea 
throws his cargo overboard. He knows fully what he 
is doing, and chooses to do it under the circumstances. 
He makes the sacrifice in order to avoid what he regards 
as a greater loss, the loss of his life. So also one will 
take a bitter medicine to avert a dangerous illness. In 
both cases there remains an aversion to the thing which 
is done — the throwing away of the goods and the 
taking of the medicine. Still both are voluntary, as the 
person retains the power not to do them. In the sense 
then that a thing is done only through fear, and would 
not otherwise be done, fear is said to diminish the vol- 
untariness of an act. 

116. Q. Does force render an act involuntary? 

A. An act that is simply forced is purely involuntary ; 
and it remains purely involuntary, so long as the will 
stands in opposition. 

117. Q. What kind of acts may be forced? 

A. Only such as may be commanded acts. The 
elicited act — that is, the pure act of the will — can never 
be forced; for, to be a pure act of the will, it must be 
purely voluntary. 

118. Q. What is required that an act may be said to 
be forced. 

A. That an act may be said to be purely forced, it 
must be brought about by a power altogether external 
to the will ; and — in case it be adverted to — also against 
the choice of the will. Thus a person may be forced to 
see by having his eyes kept open by some one else, against 
his will and in spite of all resistance. Or, a person may 
be forced to stand still — though he desires to walk, 



40 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



and tries to walk, — because a stronger person holds him 
fast. The seeing and the standing still are purely invol- 
untary. 

119. Q. What is to be said of acts that are per- 
formed unconsciously, through mere habit? 

A. If the habit was voluntarily acquired, such acts 
are voluntary in the cause. However, if a person ap- 
plies himself to overcome a habit, and, nevertheless, 
some acts escape him, through inadvertence, these acts 
can hardly be so voluntary as they would be were he 
not striving to overcome the habit he had voluntarily 
formed or continued. 



CHAPTER III. MORALITY. 



Article I. Moral Good and Moral Evil. 

Morality — It Belongs to the Human Act — Moral Good and 
Moral Evil — The Keeping or Disturbing of the Natural 
Order of Things — Man's Relations in the Natural Order 
of Things — Moral Good and Moral Evil for Man — The 
Human Act, Morally Good, Keeps Man Directed Towards 
His Last End — The Word "Moral." 

120. Q. What is meant by morality? 

A. That which constitutes a thing good or bad, in 
the sense that it is right or wrong to will it. 

121. Q. How do we here limit the application of the 
terms, good and bad? 

A. We here limit the terms, good and bad, to the 
extent in which they are applicable to the human being, 
so that for the act in question the individual acting may 
be called a good or bad man. One may be a good man 
and not be a good mechanic ; and one may be a very 
good mechanic, etc., and yet be a very bad man. Moral 
good and moral evil characterize the acts of the man as 
man, that is, the free acts of a free rational being. What 
might be good for the man, considered merely in his ani- 
mal nature, might be bad for the entire personality, man, 
taken as a unit. 

122. Q. Are there some things, some acts, which in 
themselves without further consideration, are morally 

41 



42 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



good or morally bad, in the sense that it is right or wrong 
to do them ? 
A. Yes. 

123. Q. What easy argument have we to prove this? 
A. (1) The uniform, universal, and constant testi- 
mony of the whole human race ; 

(2) The special testimony of our own minds which 
naturally and always approve or condemn certain acts ; 

(3) The peculiar testimony of pagan nations which, 
though they were practically given up to vices in general, 
retained the names good and bad for certain acts. Thus 
they never approved of blasphemy, theft, calumny; and 
always praised religion, justice, filial piety, etc. 

124. Q. Wherein then do moral good and moral evil 
consist ? 

A. In conformity with or discrepancy from the nat- 
ural order of things. Though whole nations have been 
in vice, no nation has ever entirely lost the idea of a 
certain fitness of certain actions and a certain unfit- 
ness of other actions for the free choice of the will. 
Their agreement upon these actions shows that they 
judged from the nature of things. And they rewarded 
or punished, as good or bad in themselves, the one kind 
or the other. 

125. Q. How does man stand in this natural order 
of things? 

A. He stands, — 

( 1 ) As a created being dependent upon his Creator ; 

(2) As part of the created universe; 

(3) As a being endowed w^ith various faculties, sensi- 
tive, and purely spiritual. 

126. Q. What relations arise from this position of 
man in the general order of things? 



MORALITY. 



43 



A. The following relations : — 

(1) Towards God, a relation of total dependence; 

(2) Towards the created beings of the universe, a re- 
lation of superiority and dominion as regards the irra- 
tional part ; and a relation of equality as regards the rest 
of men; 

(3) Between the faculties, certain relations of order — 
subordination of the lower to the higher, and between 
the lower faciclities a certain co-ordination as tending to 
their general subordination. 

127. Q. Upon what are all these relations founded? 
A. Upon the very nature, essences of things. Hence 

these relations are as unchangeable as the essences of 
things. 

128. Q. What then is good for man or morally good? 
A. The conformity of his actions, as man, with these 

his essential relations. 

129. Q. What is morally bad for man? 

A. The non-conformity of his human acts with these 
his essential relations ; that is, with the order established 
by his essential relations. 

130. Q. Has moral good or moral evil anything to do 
with the reaching of man's last end, his highest good, 
and with the attaining of perfect happiness ? 

A. Yes; for morality is simply the right direction of 
our actions to the last end or highest good. Man can 
tend to his perfection not otherwise than by acting in 
harmony with these established essential relations which 
he cannot destroy; and by regulating the use of his 
faculties according to that natural subordination which 
exists between them. Anything else would be a dis- 
turbance, would be in opposition to the very demands 
of human nature ; and hence, not conducive to the 



44 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



perfection of human nature, not conducive to happi- 
ness. 

131. Q. What then is the meaning of the word 
moral? 

A. The word moral comes from the Latin word 
moralis. The word moralis comes from the word mores 
{mos, moris) which means habits. However, it does not 
mean habits in the sense in which we say the habits of 
the bee, the habits of the sea, etc. The irrational ani- 
mals have their habits by nature, from the time of birth. 
These habits they do not change, nor are they capable 
of making a deliberate change. Man, however, can 
acquire habits of his own free will. Moral philosophy 
is the study of those habits which are befitting to human 
nature, to man; which tend to preserve his essential 
relations and keep him directed to his last end. Such 
habits are said to be morally good; the opposite habits 
are said to be morally bad. And as these habits are 
acquired by a repetition of individual acts, so also the 
individual act is said to be morally good or morally bad, 
as tending to establish the good or bad habit. 



Article II. Determinants of Morality. 

Determinants of Morality — Purpose, Means, Circumstances, 
— End Does Not Justify Means — Circumstances: Rele- 
vant, Irrelevant, Aggravating, Extenuating, Specifying — 
Act: When Materially or Formally Bad — The Intention 
or Desire Not Accomplished — The Indifferent Act. 

132. Q. In determining the morality of an act of the 
will, how many things have to be taken into considera- 
tion? 



MORALITY. 



45 



A. Three things : — 

(1) The purpose of the will; 

(2) The nature of all the acts commanded or elicited 
towards that purpose; 

(3) The circumstances of all these purposes or acts 
intended finally or intermediately. These three elements 
taken together form one complex object to which the 
will is directed. If any one of these violates the essen- 
tial relations of the individual willing, the act of the will 
is morally bad. 

133. Q. What then is required that the act of the 
will be morally good? 

A. It is necessary that the final purpose, all the in- 
termediate purposes (or the means willed) and the cir- 
cumstances of all the purposes be in keeping with man's 
essential relations or be morally good. 

134. Q. What is sufficient to make an act of the 
will morally bad? 

A. It is sufficient that there be a defect in any of the 
requisites just mentioned. 

135. Q. Which is the chief determinant of the mo- 
rality of the act of the will? 

A. The final purpose, because it is the chief thing on 
which the will is fixed, to which it directs all else, and 
without which it would not act. 

136. Q. Does a bad means, or intermediate purpose, 
become good by reason of being directed to a good end 
or good further purpose? 

A. Never. The end and the means directed towards 
it become one complex object as willed by the will. So 
that if the means be evil, the will cannot aim, even at a 
good end through such means, without performing an 
act that is morally bad. Furthermore, if the final pur- 



46 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS 



pose be evil, this purpose vitates the act of the will 
choosing any means to arrive at it, even though said 
means, in itself considered, would not be bad; for, the 
will, so choosing, chooses such means, not as in itself 
considered, but, complexly, as means — to — a — bad — 
end. A good end cannot justify a bad means. A bad 
end vitiates the use of even a good means. 

137. Q. What is meant by the circumstances? 

A. Something peculiar in the person acting or the 
thing done, the place, time, or manner of the action; 
from which there may sometimes arise even special 
relations which would not exist in other circumstances. 

The person acting. Thus: a man has been fairly tried 
and rightfully condemned to death on the clearest evi- 
dence which he himself substantiates by his own confes- 
sion. If he be executed by a lawfully authorized person, 
the killing will be an act of justice. But if he be put to 
death by a private individual, through motives of ven- 
geance, the killing will be murder. 

The thing done. The giving away of money can be 
an alms if it be one's own money. It will be theft if it 
be another's money. 

The place. Thus: an evil deed may contract a new 
species of evil by the place in which it is done; a sacred 
or public place, for instance, adding to it the character 
of sacrilege or scandal. 

138. Q. What is a relevant circumstance? 

A. One that affects the morality of an act as good or 
bad. Thus, in the giving of money, the giving to a 
poor man who wants to buy bread ; or the giving to an 
intemperate man who asks it that he may intoxicate 
himself. 

139. O. What is an irrelevant circumstance? 



MORALITY. 



47 



A. One that does not affect the morality of an act as 
good or bad. Thus it does not affect an act, to make it 
good or bad, whether one gives alms at the door or 
through the window, or whether one intoxicates himself 
in the east room or the west room. 

140. Q. What is an aggravating circumstance? 

A. One that increases the degree of moral goodness 
or moral badness of the act in the same kind ; as if one 
makes a greater alms or nurses his anger longer. 

141. Q. What is an extenuating circumstance? 

A. One that diminishes the moral goodness or moral 
badness of the act in the same kind. 

142. Q. What is a specifying circumstance? 

A. One that carries with it a new kind or species of 
moral goodness or moral evil. Thus to be charitable is 
good. Charity to our enemies adds a new kind of moral 
goodness, i. e. forgiveness. 

143. Q. Has the knowledge or ignorance of the 
exact nature of the whole case anything to do with the 
morality of the act of the will willing? 

A. Yes. The act of the will is morally good or bad 
and in such species of goodness or badness, not pre- 
cisely according to the exact nature of the thing done 
as it is in itself, and of the circumstances as they are in 
themselves; but as they are known to be or even, 
through mistake, thought to be. We must here call to 
mind all that has been said about ignorance as affecting 
the human act of which we are always speaking. An 
act may be materially bad, that is, in itself, and at the 
same time it may not be formally bad, as a human act, 
because the element of knowledge of its badness is 
inculpably lacking. 

144. Q. Will the act of the will be nevertheless 



48 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



morally good or bad, according to the nature of the 
act intended, though the effect it intends to bring about 
does not follow? 

A. The consequent or non-consequent effect does 
not change the nature of the act of the will really will- 
ing or intending. He who really wills to kill another, 
and yet does not kill simply because he does not find 
an opportunity, is guilty, so long as his will lasts, of the 
same kind of moral evil as he who wishes to kill and 
does kill. His will has been deliberately directed to the 
same kind of moral evil. Commonly, however, the actual 
doing indicates greater intensity and perseverance on the 
part of the will. 

145. Q. Is every human act in itself either morally 
good or morally bad ? 

A. No. There are acts which, in themselves con- 
sidered, are neither to be styled morally good nor 
morally bad. They are styled indifferent actions. To 
speak or to walk or to read cannot be styled morally 
good or morally bad, considered apart by itself; but it 
may become one or the other by reason of the circum- 
stances. It will make quite a difference what a person 
speaks or reads, or why he speaks or reads or walks. 
Walking, in itself, is not bad ; walking-for-the-purpose-of 
committing-a-theft is bad, by reason of the purpose run- 
ning through the act; and he does wrong who walks 
for the evil purpose. 



MORALITY. 



49 



Article III. False Views. 

Opinion or Human Law Does Not Affect the Intrinsic Mor- 
ality of an Act — No Rule of Morality in Atheism, Pan- 
theism, Materialism — The So-Called "Moral Sense." 

146. Q. Can the opinion of men change the morality 
of an act, so that, opinion changing, what was wrong, 
for instance, may become right? 

A. The opinion of men has nothing to do with the 
nature of good and evil; and hence nothing to do with 
the nature of right and wrong. The difference between 
good and evil, right and wrong, is founded on the very 
nature of things; and the nature of things cannot be 
changed by any opinions of men. 

147. Q. Can the law of a State make an act right 
or wrong? 

A. No law of any State can affect the nature of an 
act as it is in itself, so as to make good evil ; or evil, 
good. But there are certain indifferent acts whose omis- 
sion, and certain others whose performance, may be 
detrimental to the true public welfare. These the law 
may prohibit or command. The nature of the act does 
not change. But it becomes intimately connected with 
an order of things which it is right to keep and wrong 
to disturb. 

148. Q. What about the morality of Atheists, Pan- 
theists, Materialists? 

A. They can form no settled notions of morality, of 
right or wrong. The Atheist denying, in words, the 
existence of God, denies the basis of morality. The 
Pantheist, making himself God, denies all obligation. 
The Materialist, denying the spiritual soul, denying free 



50 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



will, puts an end to all morality, to all distinction between 
good and evil. 

149. Q. By what faculty are we to distinguish moral 
good or moral evil in action? 

A. By our intellect, just as we perceive other truths. 
Moral good is the conformity, moral evil the non-con- 
formity of an act with our essential relations. The 
truth of this conformity is to be perceived by the intel- 
lect only. 

150. Q. Why then do we sometimes speak of a 
moral sense? 

A. We do so merely by a transfer or rather a misuse 
of terms. When we say a person has no moral sense or 
sense of morality, w T e mean that such person does not 
show sensibly the horror that good persons usually 
exhibit outwardly at the presence of evil, or that the 
person does evil so readily as not to seem to distin- 
guish between good and evil. And just as we transfer 
the w T ord see (which implies the sensible ocular vision) 
to express intellectual perception of truth, saying that 
we see a truth, so do we employ the words moral sense, 
when we mean the intelligence, as the means we possess 
of perceiving, appreciating the morality of an action. 



Article IV. Imputability. 

Imputability — Attributable and Imputable — An Act Im- 
putable in so far as Voluntary. 

151. Q. When is an action attributable to an agent? 

A. Any action that proceeds from an agent is attrib- 
utable to the agent, whether the agent act w T ith liberty 
or not. Thus heat is attributable to the sun; health to 



MORALITY. 



51 



a climate. Any effect is attributable to any of its causes, 
entire or partial, to the extent to which they are causes 
of the effect. 

152. Q. Is every action also said to imputable to 
the agent from which it proceeds? 

A. No. Though in common discourse, the words 
attributable, imputable, to attribute, to impute, are some- 
times used synonymously, still in the strict philosophical 
sense, the word imputable is the more limited. It is 
applied only where the agent acts with knowledge and 
liberty. A headache may be attributed to overwork. It 
will not be imputed to overwork. It may be imputed 
to the person who has knowingly strained himself by 
overwork. In the strictest philosophical sense, the word 
imputable is applied to actions (whether elicited or com- 
manded) which are regarded as morally good or morally 
bad. And these actions are said to be morally imputa- 
ble to the person who by his free will elicits or com- 
mands them. 

153. Q. In how far is moral good or moral evil im- 
putable to a person? 

A. In so far as it proceeds from or is adopted by the 
person knowingly and willingly. 

154. Q. Do ignorance, fear, concupiscence, force, 
affect the imputability of an act? 

A. They do just in so far as they affect voluntariness 
of an act. 

155. Q. Can the acts of one person be morally im- 
putable to another? 

A. Yes; whenever and in so far as the other is 
knowingly and willingly the cause of the act, whether 
by counsel, command, consent, praise, blame, participa- 
tion, etc. 



CHAPTER IV. LAW. 



Article I. The Moral Law. 

Law — The Moral Law — Its Binding Force — Law ; Rule, 
and Precept — Characters of Law — Binding Only When 
Promulgated. 

156. Q. What, do we understand by the word law? 
A. By law we understand some constant and uniform 

method of procedure followed or to be followed by a 
class of beings ; and to which that class is in a sense 
bound. 

157. Q. Do all laws bind in the same way? 

A. No. When, for instance, we speak of the laws 
of falling bodies we mean the constant, uniform method, 
according to which bodies fall, to which they are bound 
by a certain necessity, and from which they cannot 
escape. When on the other hand we speak of the laws 
of grammar we refer to constant methods which men 
follow in speech, but to which they feel bound only by 
convention. 

158. Q. What kind of law do we speak of in ethics? 
A. The moral law. 

159. Q. What is the moral law ? 

A. A constant uniform method of action, which, if 
followed, will keep man's essential relations undisturbed. 

160. Q. Why do you say if followed? 

A. Because though it is a law and really binds, still 

52 



LAW. 



53 



man has it in his power by his own free will to go 
against it. His will is, as we say, physically free. 

161. Q. Why is this law called the moral law? 

A. Because it regards the keeping of the moral order, 
the doing of moral good, and the avoidance of moral evil. 

162. Q. As law is said to bind, from whom does it 
gets its binding force? 

A. From some one who has power to give it binding 
force. 

163. Q. What is such a one called? 
A. A Superior. 

164. Q. How is the binding force of a law measured ? 
A. By the power the Superior has to bind and by his 

will to use that power. 

165. Q. But if the human will is physically free, who 
has power to define the limits within which that physical 
liberty is to be used ? 

A. The Creator of the human will, who made it 
what it is. 

166. Q. What is the difference between a law and 
a rule? 

A. Rule is a general term which is sometimes used 
to signify law. Strictly speaking a rule is given for 
direction; law is given to oblige. 

167. Q. What is the difference between a law and a 
precept ? 

A. The word law means the same as the word pre- 
cept. But law is employed only to signify what has a 
public character; and precept is applied to commands 
given to individuals. Law is, indeed, a public general 
precept ; and precept is a private personal law. 

168. Q. What therefore are the characters of law, 
as we used the word? 



54 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



A. The following: — 

(1) Law comes from the will of the superior of a 
public body, as of the human race or of a nation. 

(2) Law is intended for the whole community. 

(3) It is intended for the good of that whole com- 
munity. 

(4) It is intended to have permanency. 

169. Q. What circumstance is necessary that law- 
shall have its binding force, and that its violation may 
be imputable to the will? 

A. It is necessary that the law be promulgated, that 
is, so published that it may be known by those for whom 
it is intended. For, one who is invincibly ignorant of 
a law cannot will to violate the law. And if the law 
is not sufficiently published to him, he is certainly invin- 
cibly ignorant of it. Hence, although he may do the 
deed prohibited by the law or omit the deed commanded 
by the law, yet his will is not directed to such deed or 
omission as a violation of the law. 



Article II. The Natural Law. 

The Natural Law — Its Existence — Readily Known — A 
Special Testimony — The Natural Law is Divine — It is 
That Part of the Eternal Law Which Applies to Man's 
Free Acts — Natural Law is Unchangeable, Irrevocable. 

170. Q. What is the natural law ? 

A. The natural law is a body of precepts which are 
founded upon the very nature of things, which tend to 
the natural perfection of man (are the rule of man's 
perfection), and which can be — and are in more or less 
definite outline — naturally known to all men. 



LAW. 



55 



171. Q. Have we indications that the human race 
has recognized the existence of such law? 

A. Yes. For, (1) All mankind have always judged 
certain actions to be good; certain others to be bad. 

(2) All men have judged that there existed and ex- 
ists a certain obligation of doing the good and avoiding 
the bad. Hence they have recognized the existence of 
a superior imposing this obligation. 

(3) All men have always judged this obligation to ex- 
ist for all mankind, and to extend even to internal 
elicited acts. 

172. Q. Is this law, then, so readily known? 

A. Yes ; in its more general precepts. For we can 
readily know by the light of reason (1) That certain 
actions are good and certain others bad, and that certain 
omissions are bad; (2) That there is an All- wise Crea- 
tor; (3) That he wishes the order of his Creation to be 
observed by each being according to its nature; that is, 
necessarily by those beings that have not free will, and 
freely by those to whom he has given liberty of action. 

173. Q. Have we also in the judgment of men a very 
strong special testimony to the existence of the natural 
law? 

A. Yes. We have it in the judgments even of men 
of depraved lives, who, though they look on the law as 
a burden, and would gladly be rid of it to follow, with- 
out reproach, the lives of brutes, still do not deny the 
existence of the law, and, in their hearts, look up to 
those who keep it. 

174. Q. Is this law a divine law? 

A. It is a divine law because it is the command of God. 

175. Q. Should it be called an eternal law, or a tem- 
poral law? 



56 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



A. It is an eternal law in the sense that it was willed 
from eternity, though to be observed in time. It is a 
temporal law in the sense that it could be known and 
kept by man only after his creation. 

176. Q. Do we, then, mean the same thing by the 
expressions eternal law and natural law? 

A. Not precisely. The expression, eternal law, has 
the wider signification. 

God wills to bind his creatures to certain lines of 
action, in keeping with the nature he has given them. 
Decreeing from eternity to create, this, also, from eter- 
nity he willed. Hence his will, or decree, that they 
should so act is called the Eternal Law. It extends to 
every created being, whether free and intelligent or not. 
With regard to all physical effects through the universe, 
where the action of a free will is not concerned, this law 
is executed by the necessary action of the nature of 
things. But free beings, in so far as their freedom 
goes, it does not necessitate ; otherwise they w T ould not 
be free. Them it obliges. It binds them without forcing 
them. Hence, the term "eternal law," is used to signify 
the divine will with reference to the whole creation. The 
"natural law," considered as contained in the eternal law, 
signifies the divine will, in reference to the physically 
free acts of man, and as such will is naturally knowable 
by reason. 

177. Q. Can the natural law change? 

A. No. Because it is founded upon the very nature 
of things. That which is of its nature good cannot be- 
come of its nature bad; and that which is of its nature 
bad cannot become of its nature good. Hence, the 
law commanding according to the nature of things can- 
not change. Human nature remains always the same ; 



LAW. 



57 



hence, also, the law by which it must be guided to its 
unchangeable end. 

178. Q. Cannot man be freed from the observance 
of the natural law? 

A. No. Because the natural law contains those pre- 
cepts without which man cannot fulfil the object of his 
existence. 

179. Q. May it not happen that a person be ignorant 
of the natural law, and thus be excused from its observ- 
ance? 

A. Invincible ignorance, of course, excuses always 
from culpability, but no one can be invincibly ignorant 
of the fundamental precepts of the natural law. 

180. Q. Still, how does it happen that what is good 
in one instance may be bad in another? 

A. This only seems to happen. The thing is not 
really the same in the two cases. Thus, the killing of 
a man is evil, if it be done by a private individual taking 
vengeance on his enemy. But it is not evil if it be done 
by the proper public official, in carrying out a just law 
in the execution of a criminal. 



Article III. Promulgation of the Natural Law. 

Natural Law Promulgated by Reason — Reason Not the Law 
— False Position of Kant — How Rectified — What is 
Meant by the Expression, "Law and Reason. " 

181. Q. How is this natural law promulgated? 
A. It is promulgated by reason to the will. 

182. Q. How does reason make known the existence 
of such a law? 

A. As has often been stated, — 



58 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



(1) By pure reason we can learn the existence of God. 

(2) By pure reason we can learn that God is our last 
end and highest good. 

(3) Pure reason can teach us that the natural aim and 
purpose of our existence is to tend to that last end and 
highest good. Hence also does it teach us that God, the 
author of our existence, wishes us to aim at this highest 
good. God, therefore, wishes us to adopt that line of 
conduct which is necessary to the end. But we know 
that there are certain actions which we must perform, 
and others which we must avoid, in order to keep our 
lives directed to the last end. This being so, we know that 
God wishes us to do the one kind and to avoid the other. 

183. Q. Can we say then that reason is the natural 
law? 

A. No. Reason is not a law ; nor does it make a law. 
Reason only points out the law. Reason does not im- 
pose an obligation; it merely makes known the obliga- 
tion. A law can be imposed by no other than a superior. 
But our reason is not our superior. Reason is only one of 
our faculties. Moreover, the imposing of the law is an 
act of will; hence law cannot be reason nor an act of 
reason. 

184. Q. What false position has been assumed by 
some writers in this regard? 

A. The false position taken by Immanuel Kant, in 
the last century, that there can be what is called "inde- 
pendent morality." Kant assumed reason to be the 
ultimate basis of obligation; the final sole source of 
any obligation thus being that the contrary, opposite, or 
contradictory is against reason — or, in other words, 
unreasonable. This is a false position because it makes 
man a law-giver to himself ; whereas man cannot give 



LAW. 



59 



a law to himself, because he is not his own superior — 
jurisdiction demanding distinction of persons. Besides, 
reason does not constitute the source of the obligation; 
it merely recognizes the existence of the obligation. Law 
must be imposed by the will of a person, and a per- 
son distinct from the one upon whom the obligation 
is imposed. Hence, according to the assumption of 
Kant and his followers, there can be no obligation of 
any kind at any time. Whence, it would follow that 
there could be no right or wrong in human action, and 
therefore no practical morality. The dictate of reason 
pointing out the obligation does not create the obliga- 
tion, or in other words, there is no such thing as 
"independent morality," — that is, morality without the 
law-giver prescribing the natural law. Under the 
assumption of Kant, if a man chooses to go against his 
reason, or, in other words, to do what we all recognize 
as evil, he can be called to account by no one; for the 
Kantian doctrine releases man from all authority, making 
him amenable to his own reason only, which is not and 
cannot be a law-giver. Thus there could be at most 
what is called a "philosophical" sin; and the most that 
could be done to any wrong-doer would be to say to him 
that he has not acted reasonably ; it being impossible for 
him to become strictly a law-breaker, in a theory which 
takes no account of the essence of law as coming from 
a real law-maker. 

185. Q. How are we to rectify the Kantian position? 

A. By recognizing that there can be no obligation 
which is not from a will, and that will even the will of 
the Creator, whose will is that we should act according 
to our reason. Thus what in Kantism, if in regard to 
the human act, is said to be merely unreasonable, or 



60 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



"philosophical" wrong, is seen to be theological wrong. 
It is sin. It is the violation of the law proper — the 
violation of the ordination of a superior. 

186. Q. But do we not sometimes call the natural 
law the law of reason? 

A. Yes. But we mean by this that it is discoverable 
by reason ; not that it is made by reason. 

187. Q. But if a law requires a superior, how does it 
happen that man can and does, really, sometimes, bind 
himself ? 

A. We repeat it, a man is not his own superior; he 
cannot bind himself. He may freely put himself in a 
position where he will be bound by a law which he has 
not made. Thus when a man gives his solemn word or 
signs a just contract, he is bound not by the word or 
writing, but he is bound by the natural law to keep his 
solemn promise given. He merely puts a condition, the 
giving of his solemn promise, whereby he places him- 
self in the circumstances where this particular law pre- 
viously existing — the law of keeping one's word — finds 
an application. 



Article IV. Obligation. 

Obligation — Physical and Moral Freedom — Foundation of 
Obligation — Mistakes of Rationalists — Office of Reason 
— Law Prior to Obligation. 

188. Q. What is an obligation ? 

A. An obligation is a certain necessity under which the 
will may lie of acting in one way rather than in another. 

189. Q. Does the will still remain free to act in the 
other way? 



LAW. 



61 



A. Yes, it remains physically free; but not, as it is 
said, morally free. By the physical power it is able to 
choose the contrary; by reason of the moral obligation 
it may not. Thus a man may have the physical power 
to steal or not to steal, but he is not morally free ; he is 
under an obligation not to steal. 

190. Q. On what is obligation founded? 

A. On the will of the Creator. And when one human 
will is morally bound to obey another, this obligation 
exists only because such obedience is according to the 
essential relations of the will obeying, and is, thus, the 
will of the Creator. 

191. Q. How do those who call themselves "ration- 
alists" go astray on the question of obligation? 

A. In the same manner as those who follow the doc- 
trines of Kant ; that is, by deriving the binding force of 
all law from reason. 

192. Q. How, again, is this incorrect? 

A. (1) In deriving the binding force of law from 
reason instead of from will. 

(2) In making each man at the same time the superior 
commanding and the subject obeying; whereas a man 
can be only just equal to himself. 

(3) In making each man thus appoint his own neces- 
sary end. This no man can do, for he has the end 
appointed for him by the Creator of human nature. 
Neither can he appoint, as he pleases, the means 
necessary to the end; for these again would involve an 
obligation, and he cannot impose an obligation upon 
himself. 

193. Q. What then does reason do? 

A. Reason merely perceives and proclaims the law. 

194. Q. But if reason simply proclaims a law which 



62 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



comes from God, how is it that we do not think of God 
commanding ? 

A, It is not necessary that we should, at each moment, 
think explicitly of God commanding. We have what is 
called habitual knowledge. It is so in all the affairs 
of life. When we make complicated calculations with 
numbers w r e do not reduce everything back to the funda- 
mental rules of arithmetic on which these calculations 
are based. Neither, when we speak correctly, do we 
keep our minds fixed upon the rules of grammar ; though, 
at the same time, we are conscious of what we have 
done, when at any time we may have violated them. 
We eat to live and to be strong enough to perform our 
duties ; yet we do not always call this to mind when we 
sit down to dinner. 

195. Q. But can we not conceive of an obligation to 
do certain actions and to avoid certain others even prior 
to the existence of law? 

A. No. The necessity of doing certain actions and 
of avoiding certain others to reach the last end, is the 
foundation for the law. Law is not constituted by the 
nature of an action nor by the perception of its nature; 
though the nature of the action serves as the foundation 
for the law. Even in civil matters, for instance, the 
needs of a city are the reason for making city laws, still 
neither the needs of the city, nor the knowledge of these 
needs, separate or together, suffice to make a law. The 
law must come from a will. 



LAW. 



63 



Article V. Knowledge of the Natural Law. 

Knowledge of the Natural Law — Fundamental Principles — 
Immediate and Remote Conclusions — The First Prin- 
ciple. 

196. Q. Are all the precepts of the natural law 
known by us with the same readiness ? 

A. No. We can perceive directly certain general 
fundamental principles or precepts. Such are the pre- 
cepts : "Do good and avoid evil;" "Keep the essential 
order," "Be by your free will what the perfection of 
human nature requires." 

From these general precepts we can very readily rea- 
son to certain other precepts, as immediate conclusions. 
Some such immediate conclusions are: "Worship God," 
"Honor your parents," "Do not to others what you 
would not have them do to you." 

From the preceding we can still go on reasoning to 
further or more remote conclusions, thus going into the 
details of the law. 

197. Q. Are the general principles so easily known? 

A. Yes. The history of peoples proves it. All peo- 
ples have recognized these principles. If it were possi- 
ble for them to be totally unknown some race of people 
would have been ignorant of them. They are recog- 
nized even by children. 

198. Q. What of the more immediate conclusions? 

A. They comprise such precepts as are in the deca- 
logue. They are easily deduced from the fundamental 
precepts. Experience proves that they cannot be invin- 
cibly unknown for a long time. 

199. Q. What argument against so-called atheists 
can be drawn from this? 



64 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



A. These men, so-called atheists, do admit moral obli- 
gation, at least in words; therefore they must admit the 
existence of a superior imposing the obligation, God. 

200. Q. If the law is so clear, why are there so many 
disputes about good and evil, right and wrong ? 

A. The dispute is not about the general principles, 
but about certain applications which reason has to make 
in certain particular complicated circumstances. 

201. Q. Still if the law is so universally known, why 
is it that we often find large bodies of peoples sometimes 
violating one or another precept ? 

A. This happens not for want of knowledge, but in 
spite of knowledge: it comes from a wilful choice of 
evil. 

202. Q. Is there any first principle of the natural 
law? 

A. Yes. 

203. Q. Which one is it? 

A. The one from which all others are deduced, and 
to which they are all reducible. 

204. Q. How is this principle expressed? 

A. It may be expressed in various terms. The sim- 
plest expression of it is in the following form: "Do 
good and avoid evil." 

205. Q. What, once more, is good with reference to 
man? 

A. Whatever is necessary to preserve his essential 
relations. 

206. 0. What is evil with reference to man? 
A. Whatever disturbs his essential relations. 

207. Q. Which, or of what kind, are these essential 
relations ? 

A. Relations towards God, towards other men, 
towards himself. 



LAW. 



65 



Article VI. Command and Prohibition. 
Affirmative and Negative Precepts — How They Oblige. 

208. Q. How many kinds or classes of precepts are 
there in the natural law? 

A. Two classes; negative and affirmative precepts. 

Negative precepts of the natural law prohibit actions 
which are bad in themselves, such as blasphemy, par- 
ricide, etc. 

Affirmative precepts of the natural law command 
actions which are necessary for the preservation of 
man's essential relations, and whose opposites are, 
therefore, in themselves bad. 

209. Q. How do the negative precepts of the natural 
law oblige? 

A. They oblige all persons, always, and at all times ; 
that is to say, there is no occasion when the actual ful- 
filment of the precept, which is one of abstention, 
ceases. Such is the precept, not to steal. 

210. Q. How do the affirmative precepts of the 
natural law oblige? 

A. They also oblige always, in the sense that they 
are never revoked and that they may not be violated at 
any time; but they do not oblige in the sense that they 
must be put into execution at every moment as must the 
negative precepts of abstention, Thus by a negative 
precept we must abstain from theft continually; but 
the affirmative precept, which ordains that external 
honor be shown to parents, does not oblige us to be 
constantly performing external actions that indicate 
respect. Such actions are to be performed when the 
occasion calls for them. However, affirmative precepts 



66 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



do bind at every moment in the sense in which they 
may be construed as negative; thus, there is no mo- 
ment when we may dishonor our parents. 



Article VII. Sanction of Law. 

Sanction — Sanction of the Natural Law — Natural Conse- 
quence of Violated Law — Partial and Complete Sanction 
— Sanction Known — Threefold Sanction. 

211. Q. What is the sanction of a law? 

A. By the sanction of a law we mean the safeguard 
put by the legislator for the observance of the law. 
It is the reward for its observance and the punishment 
for its violation. Very often, however, we apply the 
word, sanction, simply to the punishment appointed for 
transgressors of the law. 

212. 0. Is there a sanction for the natural law? 
A. Reason tells us there must be a sanction. 

(1) We know that a just and wise superior will act 
differently with those who observe and those who despise 
his law. 

(2) We know that though the human will should obey 
through the pure motive of obligation, still a sanction 
is necessary for the generality of men, especially when 
they are moved by strong passion. Hence the Supreme 
Legislator will take such means, present such motives 
as may and should be deemed sufficient or necessary to 
urge the generality of men to keep the law. 

(3) Moreover, we know by experience that it is only 
the conviction of the existence of such sanction that 
does keep the generality of men within the law; and 



LAW. 



67 



that if the sanction were removed they would, in pas- 
sion, throw off the observance of the law. 

213. Q. Does the violation of the natural law carry 
with it its own sanction ? 

A. Yes. The law of any nature is to tend to its own 
perfection. If this tendency be impeded, that perfec- 
tion will not be reached. Man's perfection lies in that 
which also constitutes his happiness. If he abjures 
the law of his nature he will not reach happiness. Thus 
far, misery is a natural result of the violation of the 
law; and being according to the nature of things, 
is the will of the Author of human nature. And men, 
as a fact, do not consider that there is a law, where 
there is no sanction. 

214. Q. Is the sanction for the natural law found in 
the present life? 

A. Partially. We must say that it is in keeping with 
the nature of things, that it should be found partially 
in this life. The sanction must begin, though unnoticed, 
with the violation of the law. We know, even by ex- 
perience, that virtue, or the observance of the law, 
brings peacec of mind; and that vice brings bitterness 
of soul, however much men may dissemble. Temper- 
ance in all things very naturally brings health and 
strength of body; whilst intemperance is followed by 
disease and accelerates death. Virtue is followed by 
esteem, and vice by contempt. Even amongst nations, 
those are happy where virtue is fostered and flourishes ; 
those tend rapidly to dissolution where vice is un- 
checked. 

215. Q. Is the sanction, here referred to, a perfect 
and complete sanction? 

A. No. For, it is not of itself sufficient to safeguard 



68 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS 



the law. It has not been and is not so regarded by 
men generally. 

216. Q. What are we to conclude from this? 

A. That as there must be a perfect sanction, its 
execution must be sought in another life. The sanction 
in the present life is not sufficient. And the justice 
and sanctity of the Creator and Law-giver demand that, 
at the end, due retribution be meted out to those whose 
wills are fixed in contempt for his law. 

217. Q. Is the existence of such sanction generally 
known ? 

A. Yes. All peoples, ancient and modern, civilized 
and uncivilized, have always professed their belief in it. 

218. Q. What is this sanction in another life? 

A. It must be, at least, the privation of perfect hap- 
piness — the innate tendency to happiness still remain- 
ing together with the knowledge that the possibility of 
reaching happiness has been deliberately rejected. 

219. Q. But does the sanction, the punishment, ter- 
minate here? 

A. There must be something else connected with the 
not reaching the end. The wrong-doing contains two 
things ; the turning from the true end and the turning 
to something which is not the end, and for which the 
true end is rejected. It is natural that this very adop- 
tion of the false for the true should bring with itself 
its own punishment. This holds throughout all nature. 
The substitution of the false for the true implies not 
only the loss of the true, but also the pain necessarily 
attendant upon the insufficiency of the false for the 
purpose aimed at, and the absolute impossibility of 
adapting it to said purpose. A false end chosen, one 
unfitted to human nature, must bring its pain with it. 



LAW. 



69 



The principle holds universally, for choice of means 
and for choice of end. The purpose of food is to sus- 
tain the body. Now if one rejects what is true food 
and takes instead what may gratify a disordered palate 
but is not food, he will not only be deprived of bodily 
strength but he will also suffer diseases, and eventually 
even death as a natural consequence of his unnatural 
mode of action. 

220. Q. Can we count upon a still further punish- 
ment as a sanction for the violation of the natural law? 

A. Yes. It is only reasonable to recognize a special 
punishment for contempt shown to the law-giver by the 
rebellious will. 

221. Q. Is such punishment just? 

A. Most just. Is a fine for contempt of court just, 
over and above the fine and imprisonment for the break- 
ing of the law? No one denies its justice. Then, if 
so, all the more just is a sanction for contempt of God, 
who is at once Creator, Law giver, and Supreme Judge 
of the universe. 



Article VIII. Positive Law. 

Positive Law — Its Possibility — Divine and Human — How 
Known — Ultimate Basis — Presupposes Natural Law — 
The Unjust Law — Ignorance in the Transgressor of 
Human Law. 

222. Q. What is a positive law? 

A. A positive law is one which prohibits something 
that is not, in itself, evil; or commands something that 
is not, in itself considered, a necessary means to a neces- 
sary end. 



70 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



223. Q. Since the positive command or prohibition 
is not given so directly by reason of the nature of the 
thing commanded or prohibited, upon what is it directly 
based? 

A. Upon the free will of the legislator. 

224. Q. Is this a possibility? 

A. Certainly. The Creator has a right to give such 
laws, not only immediately, himself ; but also through 
men whom he may constitute superiors of other men 
in regard to matters that are intimately connected with 
the welfare of mankind. 

225. Q. How many kinds of positive law are there? 
A. Two kinds, divine positive law, and human posi- 
tive law. 

226. Q. How can divine positive law be known? 
A. By divine revelation only. 

227. Q. How can human positive law be known? 
A. By promulgation or proclamation proceeding from 

the human law giver. 

228. 0. What is the ultimate basis of human posi- 
tive law? 

A. The ultimate basis of human positive law is this: 
that society amongst men is in the nature of things. 
But human society cannot exist without some direction 
from authority existing in it. This authority cannot 
guide it to its end without legislation for particular cases 
and circumstances. 

229. Q. But is not all this provided for by the 
natural law? 

A. Only in a general way. To give an illustration, 
we may say that we are bound by the natural law to 
support our lawful governmeent. Now, though there 
may be a best way of doing this, this best way is not 



LAW. 



71 



made known, by reason, to every one, with the same 
clearness as is the general precept, "Do good and avoid 
evil." So, in the vast, complicated machinery of a city 
or a nation, for instance, if each individual were to 
undertake, with his very limited knowledge, to deter- 
mine the best way, we should have almost as many 
methods as individuls, and not one in a thousand would 
be of any value. The confusion would be indescrib- 
able; and the conduct of the civil society would be an 
impossibility. It being necessary, therefore, to have 
something determined and uniform, this uniform method 
being once fixed upon, must, for the very existence of 
the society, be imposed as a positive law by the person 
or persons in whom the authority resides. 

230. Q. What, therefore, does the positive law pre- 
suppose ? 

A. Positive law necessarily presupposes the natural 
law as a foundation upon which to rest. 

231. Q. Can the divine positive law ever be in con- 
tradiction to the natural, essential law? 

A. No ; for this would be to put a contradiction in the 
wisdom and justice of the Creator of the order of nature. 

232. Q. Can a human legislator or superior command 
whatever he pleases, and thus impose upon his subjects 
an obligation of doing whatever he chooses to order? 

A. Not at all. A human legislator has no real 
authority beyond what he needs to fill the position he 
holds, as the guide of the society over which he pre- 
sides, His authority is limited by the natural law to 
the purposes for which authority itself exists in society. 

233. Q. When is a human positive law, that is, the 
command of a human superior, to be regarded as, in 
itself, unlawful? 



72 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



A. (1) When it is opposed to the natural law. 

(2) When it is opposed to the divine positive law. 

(3) When it is contrary to the good of the commu- 
nity upon which it is imposed. 

(4) When it prescribes what is impossible. 

234. Q. Is it lawful to obey the command or law of 
one thus legislating unlawfully? 

A. If the human so-called law be opposed to the 
natural law or to the divine positive law, it may not be 
obeyed. 

235. Q. What is to be done if we find the law unjust 
for other reasons : for instance, if it be directed, not 
to the common good but to private good; or, if it be 
not equally distributed over the subjects; or, if the 
legislator exceed his power in certain matters ? 

A. If the law is certainly unjust for any of these 
reasons, it has no binding power in itself. It is to be 
remarked, however, that there are cases where the 
human law, having no binding power in itself, must, 
nevertheless, be obeyed for reasons springing from the 
natural law. For, the thing commanded being in itself 
an indifferent matter, that is, neither obligatory nor 
prohibited by reason of its very nature, the circum- 
stances may be such that to avoid positive evil, as public 
scandal, great civil disturbance, or even bloodshed, etc., 
we may be bound by the natural law to obey. And, in 
general, whenever there is not moral certainty that the 
law is unjust, it must be obeyed, because the law has 
the presumption in its favor; and there may readily be 
hidden reasons which are not apt to be, and need not 
be, open to each individual subject. 

236. Q. How does it happen that persons trans- 
gressing civil laws, in invincible ignorance as to the 



LAW. 



73 



existence of the law, are sometimes punished as though 
they were culpable? 

A. The reason of this is, that, otherwise, the conduct 
of civil society would be impossible. The civil authority 
having taken all the means necessary to make the law 
known to the citizens, cannot take into account every 
subsequent plea of ignorance; since all transgressors 
might claim invincible ignorance, and there would be 
no possibility of enforcing the law. This is a matter 
well understood, and there are very few who do not 
acquaint themselves of the laws that concern them, in 
the society in which they live. 



Article IX. A Summary. 

Summary — Essential Differences Between Natural and 
Positive Law — Natural Law Enforced by the Civil Law. 

237. Q. Give a summary of what has been said 
about the natural law. 

A. (1) God is its Author. 

(2) Reason is the herald proclaiming the law in his 
name. 

(3) Reason proclaims the law to the will, which is a 
blind faculty needing a rule to distinguish between good 
and evil, as well as a law with a sanction to serve it as 
a rein and a stimulus. 

(4) God is the superior ; the will is the immediate 
subject. 

(5) Through the will the execution of the law passes 
to the other faculties which the will can command. 

(6) Actions in themselves bad, the Creator will 



74 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS 



prohibit; actions in themselves good, and, at the same 
time, necessary for the preservation of man's essential 
relations, the Creator of the order of nature will com- 
mand. 

238. Q. Which are the essential differences between 
the natural law and positive law? 

A. The following: — 

(1) The natural law regards what is good or bad in 
itself ; positive law regards that which is in itself indif- 
ferent. 

(2) Natural law must be imposed; positive law de- 
pends upon the free will of the superior. That is to 
say, natural law is necessary, positive law is contingent. 

(3) Natural law comes from God as immediate 
superior ; positive law T may be imposed by a mediate 
superior commissioned to legislate. 

(4) The whole natural law is for all men; a given 
positive law may be for a part of the human race. 

(5) Natural law is unchangeable; positive law is 
revocable. All purely human laws are positive laws. 

(6) Natural law may be known by the light of rea- 
son; positive law, as coming from the free will of 
the superior, must be made known by some special 
sign. 

239. Q. Are not some human laws unchangeable, 
as, for instance, the civil laws which forbid theft and 
murder ? 

A. Such laws, though written in the civil code, are 
not human laws. They are parts of the natural law. 
They exist and oblige prior to the existence of any 
human law. The human law merely calls attention to 
them as especially necessary for the welfare of society, 
and declares its intention of punishing transgressors. 



CHAPTER V. MORAL CONSCIENCE. 



Article I. Moral Conscience. 

Moral Conscience— True and False Conscience — Culpability 
and False Conscience. 

240. Q. What is meant by moral conscience? 

A. The name, moral conscience, is given to any 
judgment of the mind which declares the existence 
or absence of a moral obligation in a particular case. 
When we say, with conviction, "I am morally obliged 
to do this/' "I am morally obliged to omit this," "I 
am morally free to do or omit this," such judgments 
are called acts of conscience. 

241. Q. Whence comes our conviction of the truth 
of these judgments? 

A. From the fact that they are conclusions which 
reason draws from known truths. 

242. Q. Which are these known truths? 

A. They are, always, a judgment announcing the 
general law, and a judgment announcing that a par- 
ticular case comes under the law or does not come 
under the law. From these we draw our conclusion 
as to our own obligation in the particular case. A 
single example will suffice to make this clear. For 
instance, in the first judgment we declare the general 
law, "Theft is forbidden, is evil." The seecond judg- 

75 



76 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



ment pronounces, "The taking of this money to use 
as my own is theft." Then the third judgment, which 
we call conscience, declares as a conclusion drawn from 
the preceding, "I may not take this money to use as 
my own." 

243. Q. Does the mind always go through this proc- 
ess in passing judgment on particular cases? 

A. It does so, at least implicitcly, but the process, 
through habit, becomes so rapid as not to be noticeable 
in ordinary matters. 

244. Q. What is a true conscience? 

A. A true conscience is a judgment uttering a true 
practical conclusion as drawn from two true premisses 
which declare the law and its application. 

245. Q. What is a false conscience? 

A. A false conscience is one which draws a false 
practical conclusion by reason of some error regarding 
the general law or its application to the case in ques- 
tion. A true conscience judges right to be right and 
wrong to be wrong. A false conscience judges right 
to be wrong and wrong to be right. 

246. Q. Can a person be held as culpable when 
acting under a false conscience? 

A. That will depend altogether upon the culpability 
of the ignorance from which this conscience (erroneous 
practical judgment) proceeds. 



MORAL CONSCIENCE. 



77 



Article II. Moral Certainty and Doubt. 

Moral Certainty — Enquiry — Invincible Ignorance — Doubt 

— Examination — The Unpromulgated Law — An Im- 
portant Restriction — Example — Education of Conscience 

— "Feelings" are Not Conscience. 

247. Q. What then is required that we may safely, 
lawfully, follow this practical conclusion, which we call 
conscience ? 

A. It is necessary that we be morally certain of its 
truth. 

248. Q. What is moral certainty? 

A. Conviction that excludes a prudent doubt; to 
have it, the practical judgment must be such as would 
decserve the assent of a prudent man. 

249. Q. How can we obtain this moral certainty? 
A. By such inquiry into the existence of the law and 

the matter in question, as will be proportionate, in its 
diligence, to the gravity of the case. 

250. Q. Does a person do wrong when acting upon 
a conscience invincibly and inculpably erroneous? 

A. No; for, though what is willed in this case be 
really evil, it is not known as such, and hence is not 
willed as such. And, as there is no culpability in the 
ignorance, so is there no culpability in the will acting 
upon the erroneous judgment of conscience invincibly 
trusted in as correct. 

251. Q. What is one to do when a doubt arises 
either as to the existence of a law, or as to a present case 
coming under a known law? 

A. Any one so doubting must examine before drawing 
a practical conclusion upon which to act. He must en- 



78 



FHNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



deavor to acquire moral certainty regarding the exist- 
ence or non-existence of the law, and also regarding the 
case in question as to whether it is or is not included in 
the law. 

252. Q. But suppose sufficient examination to have 
been previously made, or that it be made; what is one 
to do if the ignorance still remains? 

A. A person in this difficulty may reason as follows : 
"When a general law or the comprehension of a particu- 
lar case under a general law cannot be discovered after 
sufficient examination, such law cannot be regarded as 
sufficiently promulgated as to the general law itself or 
at least as to the comprehension of the present case. 
But a law that is not sufficiently promulgated has not 
yet its binding force. Therefore, there is no binding 
law in this case." 

253. Q. But suppose that, after serious examination, 
we find, for each side, reasons which carry weight and 
cannot be disproved, and we find ourselves thus in the 
impossibility of arriving at a conclusion — what is to be 
done? 

A. If these powerful reasons stand, some for the ex- 
istence, the others for the non-existence of the general 
law itself, such law (should there be such) is undiscov- 
erable, is not promulgated, has no binding force. 

If the law itself be certain, but there are grave reasons 
for and against deciding a given act or omission to be 
comprehended within the scope of the law, then again 
may we say that the law has not been sufficiently pro- 
mulgated with regard to the case in question. For 
instance, let us say that we are bound to do some posi- 
tive acts of benevolence to our neighbor. There may 
be strong reasons for and against some one particular 



MORAL CONSCIENCE. 



79 



act being comprehended in the law. The law is not 
promulgated with reference to that particular act. We 
may omit that act. The law, however, still remains. 
We must find other ways of fulfilling it. Or again, the 
law forbids and we are in the same kind of doubt as to 
whether some particular omission is included. We may 
act as if the law regarding that omission were not pro- 
mulgated. 

254. Q. Is THERE SOME RESTRICTION TO BE OB- 
SERVED IN SO DEALING WITH A DOUBT EVEN THUS 
WELL GROUNDED ? 

A. Yes; a very important and serious restric- 
tion. 

255. Q. What is this restriction? 

A. The following: Whenever there is an end 
which we are absolutely bound to attain, and there is a 
means by which we can surely attain that end, we may 
not reject this sure means in order to try one that is 
only probable, no matter how strong the probability 
may be. For this would be deliberately to risk the end 
to which we are absolutely bound and which it is in our 
power to secure. 

256. Q. But suppose that in the same case, we have 
no absolutely sure means, but only possible or truly 
probable means, what is to be done? 

A. Of course the law does not oblige beyond possi- 
bilities. But, in this case, it binds as far as the possi- 
bilities go, and the means that are known to be more 
secure will have to be taken. Only when the proba- 
bilities are equal will there here be liberty of choice. 

257. Q. Can you give an illustration that will make 
this clear? 

A. Yes. A very common, every-day example is found, 



80 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



for instance, when a physician is summoned by one who 
is dangerously ill. The physician accepts the call. He 
is bound from that moment to aim at the cure of the 
sick person. Having understood the case, he sees that 
there is one method of treatment which will certainly 
effect a cure, whilst there are others which may be 
equally serviceable, but of which he is not certain. Ac- 
cording to the principles laid down above, he is obliged 
to choose the sure method. If there is no sure method, 
he is bound to elect, among probable methods, the one 
that holds out greatest hope of success. All this, of 
course, is under the presumption that those interested 
are ready to follow his advice. 

258. Q. Can conscience be educated? 

A. Yes, conscience can be educated in the sense that 
the intellect can, by practice, acquire readiness in the 
application of primary principles to particular cases. 

259. Q. Is the education of conscience important? 
A. It is the most important education, because it 

relates immediately and directly to the final destiny of 
man. It is the one important, practical education. 

260. Q. Will it not do to trust to our feelings in re- 
gard to right and wrong? 

A. No. Feelings are not conscience. Conscience is 
reason judging according to principles. If the feelings 
constituted conscience, right and wrong would change 
with every varying mood, and what reason declares to be 
essentially evil might be declared good when it happened 
to suit one's momentary feelings. In this way there is 
no crime that could not be justified by saying that it 
was according to the person's feelings. 



CHAPTER VI. AIDS AND HINDRANCES TO 
OBSERVANCE OF MORAL ORDER. 



Article I. The Passions. 

The Passions — Of the Sensitive Order — An Instrument of 
the Will — Not Our Guide — Why Called Bad — The 
Primary Passions. 

261. Q. What aids have we for the more ready ob- 
servance of the moral order? 

A. The passions. 

262. Q. But are not the passions evil? Are they 
not always spoken of as incentives to wrong-doing, in 
fact, as bad passions but never as good passions ? 

A. These questions show that there is a great mis- 
understanding regarding the true nature of a passion. 
A passion may, indeed, be misused just as one of our 
faculties may be misused; as sight, hearing, the powers 
of speech and movement may be employed for ill. The 
hand may be commanded by the will to do theft or 
murder. But the hand is not therefore evil. So, also, 
the passions are not evil, though they may be used for 
evil as for good. 

263. Q. What then do we mean by a passion? 

A. A passion is that emotion, feeling, exaltation, 
which manifests itself in our sensitive nature upon the 
apprehension of good or evil. 

264. Q. Is passion then something of the purely sen- 
sitive order? 

81 



82 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



A. Passion is something of the purely sensitive order, 
and is found in the mere animal as well as in man. But 
in man a passion may be, as it should be, an aid or an 
instrument to the ready action of the will proper to man, 
the spiritual will. 

265 Q. How can passion be an aid to the action of 
the spiritual will or be used by it as an instrument? 

A. This will explain itself by an example. Take, for 
instance, the state of anger or the state of hope or of 
any passion in which any one may be. These are not in 
the will. But they have a relation to attitudes the will 
takes towards good and evil as seen in various phases 
and so presented by the intellect to the will. These 
phases of good or evil are, that they are present, absent, 
attainable, avoidable, etc. For each of these phases, as 
presented by the intellect, we say there is an attitude of 
the will ; and for each attitude of the will there is a pos- 
sible corresponding exaltation, emotion in the sensitive 
nature, that is, a corresponding passion. Now, when the 
passion of hope or of anger is roused, as corresponding 
respectively to the attitude of the will towards good 
(presented as being attainable) or evil (as being un- 
bearable), the position taken by the will is fortified, the 
continuance of the position or act of the will becomes 
easier, and the act itself is intensified, since the whole 
man, soul and body, is roused to the same effort. 

266. Q. Why then is it said to be wrong to follow 
passion ? 

A. Because our guide is reason and not passion. 

267. Q. Can the passions be awakened independently 
of the act of the will? 

A. Yes; because being of the sensitive order they 
may, in us as in the mere animal, be awakened by the 
sensitive perception of sensible good or evil. 



OBSERVANCE OF MORAL ORDER. 



83 



268. Q. Is it wrong to follow passion in this case? 
A. It is always wrong to follow passion as a guide. 

It may be, however, that passion in this case shall hap- 
pen to be directed to the real good of man. This, reason 
will decide. And then, though we may act according to 
the passion, still we will not be following passion bul 
reason. 

269. Q. How is it that the passions are commonly 
called bad? 

A. This comes simply from the fact that passion, 
being something of the sensitive order, may indeed be 
roused, independently of and prior to the act of the free 
will. It may be thus roused at the mere perception of 
some partial and purely sensible good which the free 
will, acting under the guidance of the intellect, should 
reject as not being conducive to the good of the whole 
man taken as a unit. When passion is thus roused, it 
is easy to see that the will, besides having to reject the 
partial and apparent good apprehended, has also to make 
a special effort to overcome the tendency made active 
by the rousing of the passion. Thus it is that passions 
are called "bad," because it is wrong to follow them as 
the guide of human conduct, and because, when passion 
accompanies, the movement of the will towards evil is 
readily intensified. But we must remember, that with 
passion accompanying, there are the same conditions 
established for increase of intensity in the movements 
of the will towards good. 

270. Q. How many passions are there? 

A. It would not be easy to enumerate them all with 
any kind of precision. There are combinations, com- 
plexities of sensible emotion, which it is not always 
easy to analyze or to designate by a specific name, and 



84 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



which respond to varying attitudes of the spiritual will 
towards good and evil apprehended in various phases, 
as attainable, as present, as difficult to reach or to 
avoid, etc. 

271. Q. Can we nevertheless distinguish some pri- 
mary or elementary passions? 

A. Yes. 

272. Q. Are there some that we can regard as fun- 
damental, as leading to or forming an element in all the 
others ? 

A. Yes. 

273. Q. Which are they? 

A. Love and its contrary, hatred. 

274. Q. What is love? 

A. Love is the passion that arises on the mere con- 
templation of good. 

275. Q. What is hatred? 

A. Hatred is the passion that arises on the mere con- 
templation of evil. 

276. Q. What passions directly follow love? 
A. Desire and delight. 

277. Q. What is desire? 

A. Desire is the tendency or inclination to possess 
the good which has been apprehended as absent. 

278. Q. What is delight or joy? 

A. Delight is the actual pleasure consequent upon 
the possession of good. 

279. Q. What passions directly follow hatred? 
A. Abhorrence and sadness. 

280. Q. What is abhorrence? 

A. Abhorrence is the tendency, the inclination, to be 
separated from the evil that has been apprehended and 
regarded with hatred. 



OBSERVANCE OF MORAL ORDER 



85 



281. Q. What is sadness? 

A. Sadness is the pain or suffering consequent upon 
the actual union with, possession of, the evil appre- 
hended. 

282. Q. Are there other passions readily discernible 
and easily analyzed as being immediately associated with 
the preceding? 

A. Yes. 

283. Q. Which are they? 

A. Hope and despair; fear and daring (courage); 
anger. 

284. Q. What is hope? 

A. Hope is the passion which arises when a good 
desired is seen to be difficult yet possible to attain, or 
when an evil that is abhorred is seen to be difficult yet 
possible to avoid. It corresponds to the attitude which 
the will takes on, when the good or evil is thus presented 
by the intellect, with special prominence given to the 
possibility of attaining or avoiding — with special light 
thrown upon this possibility. 

285. Q. What is despair? 

A. If in the previous case the intellect is occupied 
chiefly with the difficulties, makes them prominent, puts 
them in a strong light, neglects the consideration of the 
possibilities, the will takes on a different attitude, and 
the corresponding passion is despair. 

286. Q. What is daring or courage? 

A. Courage is the passion that follows hope. It arises 
when we go out bravely to overcome the obstacles that 
stand in the way of our attaining the good or avoiding 
the evil. 

287. Q. What is fear? 

A. Fear is the opposite of courage or daring. It is 



86 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



the shrinking at the view of the obstacles to be encoun- 
tered in an attempt to reach the good or escape the evil. 
288. Q. What is anger? 

A. Anger is the rising up against present evil which 
is upon us, which has overtaken us. 



Article II. Habits: Virtues; Vices. 

Habits — An Act and a Habit — A Moral Habit — Virtue 
and Vice — The Cardinal Virtues — Prudence, Justice, 
Fortitude, Temperance. 

289. Q. What other aids may we employ for the bet- 
ter observance of the moral order? 

A. Habits. 

290. Q. What is a habit? 

A. We use the word, habit, to express the facility, 
readiness, promptness, ease, together with the constant 
inclination, which any given power or faculty may pos- 
sess of performing a given act. 

291. Q. Is habit, then, the same as power? 

A. No. One may possess the power of doing a cer- 
tain act, and yet not have the habit of doing it. In fact, 
a power may be so far from the condition called habit 
that it may not be in the condition to be used for even 
a single act. One may also possess a power and have 
never exercised it. 

292. Q. Does a single act indicate the existence of 
a habit? 

A. No. 

293. Q. How is a habit formed? 

A. By a sufficiently frequent repetition of the same 
act. 



OBSERVANCE OF MORAL ORDER. 



87 



294. Q. What is a moral habit? 

A. A moral habit is one that inclines to an act mor- 
ally good or evil, and is, moreover, imputable for its for- 
mation as a habit to the person who possesses it. 

295. Q. What name is given to a moral habit inclin- 
ing one to the performance of an act that is morally 
good? 

A. Such habit is called a virtue. 

296. Q. What name is given to a moral habit inclin- 
ing one to an act that is morally bad ? 

A. £uch habit is called a vice. 

297. Q. Are there certain fundamental, guiding vir- 
tues under which we can classify all the good habits 
that go to make up the perfect human life? 

A. Yes. 

298. Q. Which are they? 

A. They are Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Tem- 
perance, commonly known as the Cardinal Virtues. 

299. Q. Why are they called cardinal virtues? 

A. They are so called from the Latin word cardo, 
a hinge, because human conduct, if pivoted upon them 
and upheld by them, will move upright as a door upon 
its hinges. 

300. 0. What is justice? 

A. Justice, as a cardinal virtue, is the acquired gen- 
eral tendency or ease of choosing good and rejecting 
evil. This general ease results from the formation and 
exercise of many habits of different particular virtues, as 
each particular habit results from the repetition of acts. 

301. Q. But is there not an act of justice, thus im- 
plied in every act of virtue? 

A. Yes. For, as justice is the general habit of doing 
good and avoiding evil, an act of justice is, necessarily, 



88 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



implied in every act of virtue, because every act of vir- 
tue is a choice of good. So, also, in every particular 
virtue, which is the habit of a particular good act, there 
is a partial habit of justice. But that habit which rules 
the whole life, and which we call the cardinal virtue of 
justice, cannot be said to be possessed until many par- 
ticular virtues have been acquired, so that it may be 
said that the will is directed generally to good. 

302. Q. What is prudence? 

A. Prudence, as a cardinal virtue, is the general habit 
of readily discerning the right and the good to be pre- 
sented to the will. Every habit of particular virtue is 
accompanied by prudence in regard to the acts of that 
virtue. But the cardinal virtue of prudence covers the 
same ground as the cardinal virtue of justice. It is 
a general habit, implying the possession of many par- 
ticular habits. In it is included the habit of caution in 
new circumstances and of investigation before action 
in doubtful cases. As justice is a habit of the will 
inclining it to the right and the good, so prudence is 
a habit to which the intellect is formed, under the obedi- 
ence of the will, to seek out the right and the good. 

303. Q. What is the cardinal virtue of temperance? 
A. It is a habit, residing in the sensitive nature. 

whereby sense is rendered readily obedient to the will 
and kept within the bounds prescribed by reason as 
necessary to the co-ordination and subordination of the 
various faculties. Every restraint of passion within its 
due limits is an act of temperance. The cardinal virtue 
finds its special exercise in moderating the use of gross 
sensual pleasure. 

304. 0. What is the cardinal virtue of fortitude? 
A. As temperance is the virtue which holds the senses 



OBSERVANCE OF MORAL ORDER. 



89 



in restraint, so fortitude is the habit of going forward 
and of not shrinking at the view of obstacles and diffi- 
culties that have to be met and overcome in the pursuit 
of good and the avoidance of evil. 

305. Q. Are not the names, justice and temperance, 
often used to signify particular virtues? 

A. Yes. Justice is often used in the limited sense of 
what is called commutative justice, which is the giving 
to every one his due. Temperance is very widely taken 
in but one of its applications; i.e. moderation in the use 
of alcoholic drink. 



CHAPTER VII. SOME ERRORS. 



Sentimentalism — Sensism — Sensualism — Positivism 
— Utilitarianism. 

306. Q. What errors are common regarding the 
fundamental ethics? 

A. As was stated previously, there will always be 
errors regarding conduct where there are errors con- 
cerning the true nature, origin, destiny, and relations 
of man. The errors of to-day may be reduced to (1) Sen- 
timentalism and Sensism, which err respecting the faculty 
with which we perceive morality; (2) Sensualism, Pos- 
itivism, and Utiliarianism, which err in starting from a 
false definition of morality. 

307. Q. What is sentimentalism? 

A. Sentimentalism is the error of those who say that 
the perception of and the discrimination between good 
and evil is all a matter of instinct, of which we can 
render no rational account. Good, say the sentimental- 
ists, is recognized by its producing a certain internal 
satisfaction in us, a certain unaccountable sympathy of 
which we become aware. It is clear that according to 
this system there could never be any standard of mor- 
ality. Good and evil would change with every fickle 
mood. Mere inclination would be the only test of good 
and right, and could be appealed to as justification for 
any crime. 

90 



SOME ERRORS. 



91 



308. Q. What is sensism? 

A. Sensism is the error of those who say that we 
have a special sensitive faculty to perceive good and 
evil; as the eye is intended to perceive color, and the 
ear, sound. That there is no special faculty for this 
purpose and that it is the intellect that judges of good 
and evil, as it does of anything else, has been shown. 
Moreover, it is absurd to say that moral good and evil 
can be perceived by a mere sense. Only intelligence can 
perceive moral evil as such. Only intelligence can per- 
ceive the meaning of the abstract law, the knowledge 
of which must precede the perception of the moral good 
and evil in the individual case. 

309. Q. What is sensualism? 

A. Sensualism is the error that puts moral good in 
what is pleasing to sense, and moral evil in what is 
painful to sense. It is broader in its error than what 
we called sensism. It does not assume a special sense 
for the perception of good and evil, but makes any sense 
capable in its own way. This is the only ethics of the 
materialistic philosophy. According to it, man cannot 
be considered reprehensible for any crime which he takes 
pleasure in committing. 

310. Q. What is positivism as a system of morality? 
A. The positivist defines good to be that which is 

commanded by law; and evil that which is forbidden 
by law. The mistake, here, lies in making law the test 
of morality in an act; whereas, the morality of the act 
is the test of the justice of the law. 

311. Q. What is utilitarianism? 

A. Utilitarianism begins by defining the morally good 
to be that which is useful. Upon a limited and, hence, 
false application of this definition, the utilitarians try to 



92 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



build up a system of morality. Their first care is to 
exclude the consideration of a Creator and of a future 
life. They will not directly deny either, but simply 
reject the consideration, saying flippantly that what is 
good for time is good for eternity. As well might one 
discuss a triangle, assuming that it has but one angle. 

However, even when limiting the consideration to 
this life, the utilitarians have never been able to agree 
upon what was to be regarded as useful. Some have 
defined the useful to be whatsoever can give pleasure in 
this life. This at once drags the theory down to the 
lowest depths of the grossest sensualism. Others, fear- 
ing to go so far, have defined good as that which is use- 
ful to society at large. Still, even here, with temporal 
benefit their standard, they make no distinction between 
the intrinsic morality of any two acts. They leave the 
decision of good and bad to the alternate triumphs of 
political disturbers. Besides, there is another danger- 
ous false principle involved in this kind of utilitarian- 
ism: namely, that the individual exists simply for the 
temporal welfare of that very vague thing called the 
state, or for as vague a thing, the general good of the 
greater number. The absurdity of the principle is man- 
ifest if we but remember that the welfare of the state 
means nothing but the welfare of the individuals who 
compose it; that the state is for the members and not 
the members for the state. The principle is a most dan- 
gerous one. It lies as the foundation stone of the two 
extremes of despotism and communistic socialism. It 
lays wide open the avenue to every species of tyranny 
which those who obtain power may choose to exercise. 



CHAPTER VIII. DUTY AND RIGHT. 



Duty and Right — Moral Obligation and Moral Power — 
Free Will Under Law — Our Essential Relations. 



312. Remark. We have, indeed, brought out in the 
preceding pages all the fundamental principles of right 
conduct. But between these fundamental principles and 
the concrete affairs of life there is one point which has 
to be considered if we wish to make the application 
of the principles correctly. We may consider it here 
without departing from the abstract character we have 
imposed upon our book. We refer to the question of 
right and duty. The solution of every question of ethi- 
cal practice is reduced eventually to the task of deter- 
mining the limits of life. In speaking of rights and du- 
ties, we use the word "right" in sense different from that 
which we gave to it when speaking of right and wrong. 
The term "right," as opposed to wrong, was employed 
to characterize the act of the will when choosing the 
"good." A "right," as distinguished from a duty, sig- 
nifies the moral freedom of the will to choose that which 
is not evil. In this sense we say "to have a right." In 
the other sense we say "to do right." Of course, we 
cannot have a right to do what is wrong. Our rights 
are necessarily limited by the circle of what is right. 
Hence, 



93 



94 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



313. Q. What further knowledge is necessary before 
we can begin to make the application of the fundamen- 
tal ethics to human conduct in the conditions of actual 
life? 

A. It is necessary to have a very correct and definite 
knowledge of two things. 

314. Q. What are these two things? 
A. Duty and right. 

315. Q. What is duty? 

A. Duty is the moral obligation which law imposes 
upon the will of man. 

316. Q. What is right? 

A. Right is the liberty of action, the moral power 
left to the will to do or omit an act when there is no 
law to the contrary. 

Note. — Though long treatises are required to exhaust the sub- 
ject of duty and right considered in the abstract and in their vari- 
ous applications to the circumstances of practical human life, still 
everything that can be said must be reducible to what has just 
been stated; namely, where there is a moral obligation there is a 
duty; where there is no moral obligation there is a right. 

317. Q. Why do we say moral power, moral obli- 
gation ? 

A. Because duty and right have no reference to one's 
being physically bound or free. Duty is what we may not 
violate though we can. But by a right w r e may do some- 
thing though it should happen that we can not. 

318. Q. Is this in keeping w T ith what was said about 
acting according to the nature of things? 

A. Perfectly so. For it is strictly according to the 
nature of things for even a free will to be limited mor- 
ally in its exercise by a law proceeding from one who 
has authority over that free will in the matter in ques- 



DUTY AND RIGHT. 



95 



tion. And again, it is strictly according to the nature 
of things that a will which is by its very nature free, 
should retain its liberty of choice in all matters where 
there is no law from its superior restricting its liberty 
of action. The limitation implies duty; the liberty of 
choice, right. 

319. Q. What important conclusion follows from 
this? 

A. It follows that where one has a right, others have 
a duty. For, if the superior having authority wishes to 
leave to an individual will the free exercise of its liberty, 
this wish of the superior becoming know^n to others is 
a law to them, imposing upon them a duty of not inter- 
fering with the free exercise of that liberty. 

320. Q. What, then, is the best way to prepare our- 
selves for the true ethical life, for correct conduct? 

A. The proper way, as well as the most expeditious, 
is to study our duties, to seek for the laws by which we 
are bound. Outside of these we are free, we have 
rights. 

321. Q. How may we know these duties? 
A. By studying our essential relations. 

322. Q. How may these relations be classified? 

A. As relations towards God, relations towards our 
fellow-men, and relations towards ourselves. We have 
a relation of dependence upon God; of equality to our 
fellow-men; of identity (stricter than equality) with our- 
selves. God wishes us to make our free acts in keep- 
ing with our essential relations. His will is law; law 
imposes obligation ; this obligation is duty. 

A comprehensive development of the consequences 
of these three relations would give us a detailed rule of 
right conduct. 



CHAPTER IX. RIGHTS. 



Article I. Basis and Nature of Rights. 

Law the Principle of Right and Duty — Enforcing of Rights 
— Impeded Right — Inviolable Moral Power — Subject, 
Term, Matter, and Title of Right. 

323. An Explanation. All right is based ultimately 
on the natural law. For the natural law is the law of 
our nature. By our very nature we are free beings, with 
the capacity of willing a thing or of not willing it, or of 
willing the opposite. Now, if the choice is not pointed 
out to us by a superior will which has the rightful 
authority to point out to us a choice and impose upon 
us the duty of making that choice, we remain free or 
unbound. And we remain free by the law of nature, 
just precisely in the same way as in the other case we 
are bound by the law of nature. That is to say, rights 
as well as duties proceed from the law of nature; and 
they proceed thus simultaneously, by the same indivisi- 
ble law, the will of the Creator willing that man should 
freely act up to his dignity as man, freely doing the 
good and avoiding the evil. Now, where of two acts, 
neither one is demanded, whether by man's own essen- 
tial perfection, or by the relations in which he stands 
towards the rest of the universe and towards his Creator, 
man is herein proclaimed free by the very law of nature, 

96 



RIGHTS 



97 



by the will of the Creator. In other words, by the law 
of nature he is endowed with rights. It is the will of 
the Creator that he should freely act according to his 
nature, preserving his essential relations. But in the 
case proposed there are no essential relations demand- 
ing for his perfection and for the harmony of the uni- 
verse, the free action of his will in one way or in the 
other. Hence he is left with the free disposal of his 
will. He is so left by the very law of nature. This 
privilege of free disposal we call a "right." 

Right and duty, therefore, are created by law. 

324. Q. Since law, in conferring a right, confers the 
free power of free action, does it also confer the right 
or moral power of forcing others to respect that right, 
and of taking the means necessary to hinder others, from 
impeding the exercise of that right? 

A. Certainly. For otherwise the right would be 
illusory. It would be a freedom impeded by the very 
law which confers it. For, if the law allows to others 
the freedom to impede my right, it cannot simultaneously 
confer upon me the freedom to act. 

325. Q. Does the law conferring upon me the right, 
allow me, then, to take any means, whatsoever, to pur- 
sue my right ? 

A. No. For no law can confer upon me the right to 
take means which are in themselves evil. 

326. Q. Is not my right, then, destroyed? 

A. No. The right remains morally inviolable, though 
it may be physically impeded or violated. 

327. Q. How can this be? 

A. This is because right, as we have so often said, is 
a moral popwer and confers the right to physical means 
only in so far as these means may not be evil. In the 



98 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



same manner, another person may possess the physical 
means of violating my right, but this does not confer 
upon him the moral power or right to do so. 

328. Q. How may we, now, briefly define "right"? 
A. Right is an inviolable moral power. 

329. Q. What four things must we consider in a 
right ? 

A. The subject, the term, the matter, and the title of 
the right. 

The subject of the right is the person who possesses 
the inviolable moral power. 

The term includes all those who are morally bound, 
that is, whose will is bound by law to respect that right, 
and leave it inviolate. 

The matter is the peculiar act which the law confers 
the power of performing. 

The title is the fact determining the particular subject 
of a right. 

330. Q. Who can be the subject of a right? 
A. Only an intelligent free being. 

331. Q. Can demented persons have rights? 

A. Yes. They possess rights radically, though by 
accident they happen to be impeded in the use of them. 
Hence others have the moral obligation of respecting 
their rights. 



Article II. Partition of Rights. 

Innate and Acquired Rights — Alienable and Inalienable 

Rights 

332. Q. How many kinds of rights are there? 
A. All rights may be divided into the two general 
classes of innate and acquired rights. 



RIGHTS. 



99 



333. Q. What are innate rights? 

A. Innate rights are those whose title is human 
nature itself. Hence, they are the same in all men. 
Such are the rights of tending to one's last end, of pre- 
serving one's life, of self-defence, of acquiring posses- 
sions. Innate rights are also called natural or primitive 
or absolute. 

334. Q. What are acquired rights? 

A. Acquired rights are those which the law confers 
by reason of an acquired title ; that is, by reason of some 
fact, circumstance, adjunct, state, condition, etc., in 
which an individual may be found, and which fact, 
condition, etc., is not common to human nature as such 
and wherever found. Such, for instance, are the rights 
of possessing something in particular, of demanding 
protection from a particular government, etc. These 
rights are also called positive or secondary or hypo- 
thetical. 

335. Q. How, again, may all rights be divided? 

A. All rights may also be divided into inalienable and 
alienable rights, 

336. Q. What are inalienable rights? 

A. Inalienable rights are those of which a person 
may not divest himself and of which he may not forego 
the exercise. They are obligatory. We are not free 
in regard to the exercise of them. They are, in fact, 
strictly speaking, duties. 

337. Q. How, then, do they come to be called rights? 
A. In this way. Whenever any one has a duty to 

perform, the same law that imposes this duty upon him 
imposes, at the same time, upon all others, the duty of 
leaving him free in the performance of that duty, of 
not hindering him in the use of the means necessary 



100 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



for the performance of that duty. Thus, though he 
himself is not free before the law to use or not to use 
such means, yet the law binds others to leave him un- 
hindered in the use of those means. There is a duty im- 
posed upon them in his regard, and in him resides a 
corresponding right. Thus the duty imposed upon all 
men of tending to their last end implies the duty of 
using the means necessary to reach that end. Hence 
each man's duty of using those means is also a right 
which others are bound not to interfere with. This, his 
right, is inalienable, because he may not divest himself 
of it; he may not willingly allow himself to be interfered 
with in the use of the means. 

338. Q. What are alienable rights? 

A. Alienable rights are those whose exercise is not 
obligatory, or of which one may divest himself, or which 
he may transfer to another. If, for instance, you 
possess a gold piece which you are not obliged to use 
to support your own life, or to maintain persons depend- 
ing upon you or to pay a debt, you are absolutely free 
to use that gold piece for whatsoever purpose that is 
not evil. Your right to the possession of the gold piece 
is alienable. You may throw the gold piece into the 
sea. You may give it to your friend or to a stranger, 
and this, with such perfect transfer, that all your rights 
will pass over to him. The piece may be taken from 
you, and you will not be obliged to do so much as to 
reach out your hand to recover it. 



CHAPTER X. DUTIES. 



Duty — Its Source — Natural and Positive Duties — Nega- 
tive and Affirmative Duties — Motive of Duty —Perfect 
and Imperfct Duties — Term of a Duty. 

339. Q. What is duty? 

A. Duty is the moral obligation of doing or omitting 
anything. 

340. Q. What, again, is the source of duty? 
A. Law. 

341. Q. How may we classfy duties? 

A. In the same way that we classify laws. Law is 
natural and positive. Hence duties are natural and 
positive . A duty arising from the natural law is called 
a natural duty. A duty arising from a positive law 
is called a positive duty. From the natural law, we 
have, for instance, the natural duties of worshipping 
God and of not injuring another's reputation. From 
the divine positive law (old law), for example, arose 
the duty of the particular observance of the Jewish 
Sabbath. An illustration of obligation coming from 
human positive law is found in the duty of giving testi- 
mony, when called upon, in courts of justice. 

342. Q. What other classification of duties have we 
from the classification of laws? 

A. As laws are either negative or affirmative, prohibit 

101 



102 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



or command, so the duties arising are, respectively, 
negative or affirmative. 

Negative duties are always wider than affirmative 
duties which proceed from a law of the same order. 
That is, they cover a greater extent of time and affect 
a greater number of persons. Thus, among duties of 
the natural order, i. e. proceeding from the natural law, 
the negative duty, not to commit murder, binds all men 
and at all times. On the other hand, in the same 
natural law, the affirmative duty of aiding the poverty- 
stricken cannot bind at every moment, nor does it bind 
every human being with regard to every other human 
being. 

Note. — What we have called affirmative law and affirmative 
duty, we sometimes see termed positive law r and positive duty. Of 
course, it is very consistent to use the term positive, as opposed 
to the term negative. But when we have once used the term 
positive to express the law which comes from the free will of the - 
legislator, as distinguished from the natural law, it can only be 
confusing to employ the same expression positive law, again, in 
contradistinction to negative law. For this reason, we have used 
the term affirmative in contradistinction to the term negative. 

343. Q. What is the motive of a duty? 

A. The motive of a duty corresponds to the title to 
a right. Law is the source. The title to a right is the 
reason-why of the law conferring the right; and the 
motive of the duty is the reason- why of the law impos- 
ing the duty. We might use the words title and motive, 
indiscriminately, or adopt either one exclusively, to 
express the reason-why of the particular effect of the 
law in both cases. But we employ the two words for 
the sake of clearness, just as we employ the words, 
right and duty, to make another convenient distinction 



DUTIES. 



103 



in the reesultant of law. If we regard the natural law, 
our rational nature considered in the abstract or in 
some concrete circumstance is the title to the rights 
conferred upon us by the natural law; and the same 
rational nature is the motive of duty imposed upon us 
by the same natural law. 

344. Q. What is meant by perfect and imperfect 
duties ? 

A. A perfect duty is one whose matter,, subject, and 
term are so clearly defined that the term, the person 
to whom the duty is due, has a clear title whereon to 
proceed against the subject of the duty to force him to 
perform it. It is also called a juridical duty and corre- 
sponds to the perfect or juridical right. An imperfect 
duty is one whose matter, subject, or term is not thus 
clearly defined. It corresponds to the imperfect right, 
which is called a claim. We will understand this from 
an example. A man who is starving has a right to some 
food that is in the city where he is starving ; for, without 
it he will die, and he has the right to live. The rich 
man, therefore, who may be appealed to for a loaf from 
his superabundance, is under the obligation of giving 
that loaf to the starving man. But if the rich man 
refuses, the starving man cannot bring him before 
the authorities of the city to force him to give the 
bread. The rich man may say that the obligation lies 
equally upon his next-door neighbor, who has likewise 
a superabundance. The starving man may indeed 
assert his right by abstracting from superabundance, 
wherever he may find it ; but he has no recourse by city 
authority against any particular individual. His right 
is a purely moral right. It is a claim upon the rich 
man's will, a claim upon his charity, generosity, human- 



104 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



ity. The rich man's duty is called a purely moral duty ; 
it is also called an imperfect duty; but this expression 
is very ill chosen, for he has a very clear, serious duty 
that is very plain to his conscience, and he commits a 
great crime in refusing the bread. 

On the other hand, if a man borrows a sum of money 
on a "promise to pay" at a certain time, and when that 
time arrives, refuses to pay, the creditor has the right to 
proceed against him, individually, to recover that par- 
ticular sum of money. The duty of the debtor is called 
a perfect duty. It is also called a juridical duty; and 
the right of the creditor, a juridical right; because the 
tribunal of justice can be appealed to in the case. 

The violation of an imperfect duty constitutes what is 
styled an offence against the person who has the claim. 
The violation of a perfect duty is not only an offence, 
but also an injury. These are the terms employed in 
this matter. Yet, who does not see how very unsatisfac- 
tory they are? For w T hat injury in money would not be 
more tolerable to the starving man than the offence of 
being refused the needed loaf? What perfect right in 
money would he not forego, to have his claim or imper- 
fect right honored? Nay, the imperfect right, in the 
case proposed, he is even bound to secure by taking from 
abundance where he may find it; whereas, the perfect 
right to the sum of money which he has loaned is alien- 
able, and he need not pursue it. 

345. Q. What is meant by the term of a duty? 

A. The term of a duty is the person towards whom one 
is bound. It is the person upon whom law T confers a right 
by reason of a title, which title is identical with the mo- 
tive on account of which the same law imposes the duty 
on the subject of the duty. The motive and title are the 



DUTIES. 



105 



same, as we have said, though looked at from different 
directions. This term may be God ; it may be my fellow- 
man; it may be myself. I owe obedience to God be- 
cause I am created and he is Creator. God has a right 
to my obedience because he is Creator and I am created. 
I have duties towards my fellow-man, and he has rights 
to my performance of them by reason, first, of the 
general equality of human nature; and, secondly, by 
reason of the particular relations that may have arisen 
between us of family, country, business, etc. I have 
duties towards myself by reason of the identity of self 
with self. I have inalienable rights by reason of my 
individual nature; and by reason of that same individual 
nature I have a duty to respect those rights; I may not 
abdicate those rights. 

It is to be noted that, in the strict sense of the word, 
we cannot be said to have rights in respect to God. 
This would destroy the essential inferiority, with respect 
to God, which pervades our whole being. Even in re- 
gard to the attainment to our last end, God owes it not 
to us, but to himself, not to hinder us in the prosecution 
of the very end for which he himself has created us. 



CHAPTER XL COLLISION OF RIGHTS AND 

DUTIES. 



Article I. Collision. 

346. Q. What is meant by collision of rights? 

A. There is said to be collision of rights when one 
person possessing a right cannot exercise it without vio- 
lating a right possessed by another person. 

347. Q. When is there collision of duties? 

A. There is said to be collision of duties when the 
performance of one duty would necessitate the violation 
of another. 

348. Q. When is there collision of laws? 

A. There is said to be collision of laws when two 
laws simultaneously impose upon the same person con- 
tradictory duties, or endow different persons with rights 
that mutually exclude one another. 

349. 0. Can there be such collision of laws, rights, 
or duties? 

A. Practically, there cannot be a real collision. But 
the term collision is useful to express a condition of 
things that very often arises, a state of doubt which re- 
quires investigation to discover the truth. Whenever, 
in a given circumstance, one of the colliding laws, duties, 
or rights is found to be real, the other must necessarily 
be only apparent. You will see this in the following: — 

106 



COLLISION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 107 

Take the case of collision of two rights conferred by 
the natural law, your right and the right of another 
person. Upon investigation, you find your right to be 
certain. Your right is declared by the natural law, by 
the will of the Creator. Now, you cannot be bound by 
the same law of nature simultaneously not to do that 
which it declares you free to do. But if another pos- 
sessed, simultaneously, by the natural law, a right which 
impeded your freedom, which really collided with your 
right, you would, at the same time and by the same law, 
be both bound and free. For the right of the other 
being declared by law, the same law declares you bound 
not to impede such right. Thus you would be both 
bound and free in the same respect and by the same 
law. The impossibility of real collision is evident. 
Hence, in the case of conflict between two rights or two 
duties under the natural law, if one of the rights or 
duties is found to be real, the other certainly does not 
exist. 

Let us take a case where there is a conflict between 
a right which seems to be conferred by the natural law 
and a right which seems to be conferred by some posi- 
tive law. It is clear that if the natural right be found 
to be certain, the positive law in question must be only 
supposed or apparent or misunderstood; or, if none of 
these, then certainly unjust, and, hence, null and void. 
If it be positive divine law, it certainly must be misin- 
terpreted in the present application. For the positive 
divine law cannot come into conflict with the natural 
law, which is also divine. God is supreme intelligence ; 
and it is not the part of intelligence to demand the 
simultaneous existence of two incompossible things. If 
the positive law which seems to conflict with the certain 



108 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



natural law be a human positive law (all human laws are 
positive), then either it has been misinterpreted in its 
application; or, if it be really intended to conflict with 
the natural law, it is unjust, and is null and void, because 
no human statute can come in the way of the natural 
law, which is divine. 



350. Q. How may we summarize the possible cases 
of collision of rights? 

A. All the more difficult cases may be found exem- 
plified in the following: — 

If the rights be equal, that is, conferred by laws 
of the same order, then the right which is first carried 
into execution holds, and the other falls away. A good 
illustration of this will be found in the opening up of 
new territory, such as Oklahoma, to the citizens of the 
United States. The government confers equal rights to 
the territory upon all. But, so soon as one has asserted 
his right by putting down his stake, the rights of the 
others fall away., We will have the same in the right 
conferred by the natural law upon two men, starving on 
a desert island, to a loaf of bread washed ashore by the 
waves. Whilst the loaf is on the sand the right of each 
is equal. But when one has picked up the loaf the 
other has no longer any right to it. The first one has 
acquired the concrete right of primi occupantis, as it is 
called; that is, the right of the first occupier. 

But let us take the case where the rights are, as 
above, of the same order, but where the concrete exer- 
cise of the right is simultaneous on the part of both 



COLLISION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 109 

individuals. Suppose that they had grasped the loaf 
simultaneously. Or, as the loaf might break, let us 
substitute for it something that could not be divided. 
Take the case of two men in the open sea, who are 
swimming for a plank. They lay their hands upon the 
plank at the same moment. The plank is sufficient to 
keep one man afloat, but it will not support two men. 
As they cling to the plank, it goes down with both of 
them. They release their hold. They come to the sur- 
face, and so does the plank. They grasp it once more 
simultaneously. Who has the right to it? Is there not 
a collision of absolutely equal and simultaneous rights? 
Is there a solution? Are both to leave the plank alone 
and drown? Or are they both to cling to it and drown? 
We have not supposed that either one is bound by any 
outside reason to yield the plank to the other. Each 
retains a right. Neither one may use any kind of force 
against the other. Each one may defend himself against 
violence. Each one must allow to the other whatsoever 
he can claim for himself. In case they do not both 
drown, the final possession of the plank will be the sole 
circumstance necessary to give either one an inviolable 
concrete right to the plank. This circumstance will be 
conditioned by skill and endurance which will violate 
no right. It will come to pass that one will cling to the 
plank longer going down, or that one will reach it sooner 
on coming up. When either one thus gets the plank it 
is his by the right of first occupier. There has been no 
collision. The rights of effort have been real and equal 
up to the moment of occupation. With occupation they 
cease. 

What if the rights are unequal? When the rights 
are not equal, the decision is to be given in favor of the 



110 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



better right. The same is to be said of duty and law. 
We shall consider some principles for the precedence 
of rights in the next article. Here we wish to prepare 
for their more easy comprehension by examples. There- 
fore, — 

There is a natural law, which is divine, by which we 
are bound to help our neighbor when he is in extreme 
need and requires our personal help. We will suppose 
that he has been shipwrecked and is on a rock in the 
sea in sight of land. His companion has gained the 
shore and says that the man on the rock will die by 
night if he does not get relief. It is nine o'clock on 
a Sunday morning. In the hamlet by the shore there 
is no boat fit to put to sea. Some one in the listening 
crowd suggests that in about five hours he could put one 
of the boats in condition to reach the rock and return. 
At once, a long- faced man near by is ready with the 
precept, "Thou shalt not labor on the Lord's day." 
Here is a precept conflicting with the precept of 
charity mentioned above. What is to be done? 
The law of abstention from labor is a positive law. 
The duty of abstention arises neither from the nature 
of labor nor from the nature of any particular day. 
The duty of charity in the present case is a duty im- 
posed by the natural law, and it is in regard to what 
man holds as his highest temporal possession, his life. 
The duty is imperative at this very moment. Now, the 
positive law of rest from labor on a given day, regard it 
as you will, whether as a human (ecclesiastical) or as a 
divine law, could not, in the mind of the legislator, have 
been intended to come in conflict with the universal and 
essential duty of charity to our neighbor in his extreme 
need. The law of charity is irrevocable. The law of 



COLLISION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 



Ill 



rest from labor can be changed according to the will of 
the legislator from whom it originally proceeds. The 
positive law of rest from labor does not embrace the 
case proposed. The right of the sufferer to assistance 
remains. The legislator has not wished that the com- 
mand of rest should extend to a case where it would 
conflict with the grave and permanent right to assist- 
ance conferred by the natural law upon the sufferer. 

Here is another example. By the natural law every 
man has a right to his justly acquired possessions. By 
the same natural law every man has a right to preserve 
his own life. Now, a certain individual happens to be 
pursued by enemies who are bent on taking his life. 
He sees a horse standing in the road. The owner is in 
a field, thirty feet away. The man who is pursued asks 
for the use of the horse. The owner objects, saying 
that he is going on a visit. The fugitive leaps on the 
horse and escapes. What is the justice of the case? 
The matter of the fugitive's right is the saving of a 
human life. The matter of the owner's right is the 
making of a visit. The use of a certain piece of prop- 
erty, the horse, is necessary for the execution of both 
rights. Which right carries with it the right to the use 
of the horse? The right of the fugitive. For, though 
the owner's right, if there were no fugitive, would be the 
right to the use of his own property, the right to 
superfluous property is not conferred by the natural 
law upon any man to the extent that another may be 
thereby deprived of what is necessary for life. Hence 
the natural law did not confer upon the owner the right 
to the use of the horse at that moment and under those 
circumstances. 



112 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



Article III. Some Principles. 

Principles — Suspension of Law — Natural Law the Basis — 
Degrees of Difficulty. 

351. Q. What general principles have we then, to 
determine the real right in case of an apparent col- 
lision ? 

A. We must study the source of the rights, their 
matter, title, subject, and term. It is out of these that 
we are to determine which right, law, or duty is the one 
that does not extend to the case in question. 

If we regard the source of right and duty, which is 
law, we may lay it down, in general, that a right or 
duty which can be shown to be upheld in given circum- 
stances by the natural law, takes precedence of any 
other right or duty not of the natural law ; that is, of any 
right or duty coming from positive law whether human 
or divine. 

In the case of a collision of rights or duties proceed- 
ing from the same source, the negative takes precedence 
of the affirmative. Thus, in the natural law we have 
the negative precept which prohibits murder, and the 
affirmative precept which commands obedience to 
parents. Should a father and mother, therefore, order 
their child to commit murder, such order is not author- 
ized by the law commanding obedience; for the order 
is in direct opposition to the natural law which forbids 
murder absolutely, at all times and under all circum- 
stances. The affirmative precept which, after all, by 
the nature of things, can be exercised only at times, 
must necessarily be interpreted as not calling for exer- 
cise in such a way or at such a time as would bring 



COLLISION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 



113 



about a violation of the negative law which binds the 
human race, all men, at all times. 

In the case of a collision of rights coming from the 
matter, the more important matter takes precedence. 
The question of the use of the horse, given above, sup- 
plies us with an example. The opposition is between 
the use of the horse as the essential means to a visit, 
and the use of the horse as the essential means for the 
preservation of a human life. The matter of the first 
right is a mere trifle in comparison to the matter of the 
second. By the very law of nature the first right does 
not exist for the moment. We cannot conceive of the 
law of nature conferring upon any man the use or hold- 
ing of any of the goods of earth which are absolutely 
necessary for the existence of another man, except in 
the event of the use or holding of the thing being neces- 
sary for the existence of the actual possessor. 

If we consider the title to the right, we have the 
innate right and the acquired right. An innate right 
may be inalienable or alienable. If it be inalienable, it 
takes precedence of any acquired right. If an innate 
right which is alienable comes into collision with an- 
other's acquired right, we must take into consideration 
the circumstances of the case, such for instance, as give 
occasion to a multitude of our civil laws. Any man has 
a right to build a large chimney on his own property; 
and even to build a large fire under the chimney. 
But his neighbors may declare that his chimney is an 
intolerable nuisance to them, and they may so report it 
to the city authorities. The city authorities may make a 
law about chimneys, and order him to abate the nuisance 
in some way or other. He may argue that by the law 
of nature he has a right to build a chimney and also to 



114 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



build a fire under it. The city authorities will tell him 
that this is an alienable right. They will tell him that 
every man who becomes a citizen acquires a right to 
protection from nuisances, and that he also agrees to 
forego the exercise of any alienable right which would 
be an intolerable nuisance to his fellow-citizens. Hence 
the right to build such chimneys and to build such fires 
under them does not extend to that locality and must 
not be exercised in it. 

We must consider the subject of the right. We have 
said that the subject of a right is a person. A person 
may be a physical person, that is to say, one individual 
human being; or a moral person, that is to say, a family, 
a city, a province, a whole nation. What is to be done 
when there is a conflict between the rights of an in- 
dividual and those of a moral person? The inalienable 
rights of the individual stand before any rights of any 
moral person, of any community, be it family, city, or 
nation. The individual is first in the order of things. The 
family is for the individual. The nation is for the family 
and the individual. Again, in the family, itself, between 
the whole and the individual members and between the 
separate members there arise from the very nature and 
constitution of the family mutual, reciprocal, and re- 
spective rights and duties. Some of these are inalien- 
able and may not be relegated, to be exercised at will, to 
any other person, whether individual or moral, to another 
family, to the city or the nation. Neither can any other 
family nor can the city or the nation usurp the rights or 
exact the duties that lie essentially in the family and 
between its members. And we may remark that when- 
ever a body of national legislators tries to glorify the 
national power by usurping the inviolable rights of the 



COLLISION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 



115 



family and of the individual, the ultimate decadence of 
the nation is certain if the process of usurpation be per- 
severed in. For, in the order of things, the strength of 
the nation lies in the strength of its individuals and 
of its families ; and the strength of the individuals and of 
the families as factors of national progress lies in the free 
exercise of the rights that come within their scope. Of 
course, there are alienable rights which the family must 
forego when it elects to live within the limits of the city 
or the state, as we saw in the case of the man with the 
chimney. But civil legislators must be very prudent not 
to interfere with those family rights which hold prior to 
and in absolute independence of any purely civil law. 

Finally, with regard to the term of right or duty we 
have to say the same thing that we have just said about 
the subject. The term of my right is the person or per- 
sons who are bound to respect my right. The term 
of a duty of mine is the person or persons who have 
a right to exact of me the performance of that duty. 
Term is simply the correlative of subject, as duty is 
the correlative of right. The subject of a right is the 
term of the corresponding duty. The subject of a duty 
is the term of a corresponding right. Hence, in colli- 
sion, where precedence was given to the subject of a 
right, obligation will rest upon the term of the same 
right; that is, upon the subject of the corresponding duty. 

352. Q. What is meant by suspension of law? 

A. The expression, "suspension of law," is a con- 
venience of speech employed to represent briefly what 
takes place in a collision of rights and duties. As we 
have seen, whenever there is collision, one of the laws, 
rights, and duties will be found, upon investigation, not 
to extend to the case in question. It would extend to 



116 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



the case were the case other than it is. But it does 
not embrace, nor was it intended to embrace, the actual 
situation. For brevity and convenience the law is said 
to be suspended. 

A father is obliged by the natural law to provide 
necessary food for his young children. But suppose 
that for two or three days he can obtain no food that 
is not poisoned. The law is said to be suspended. The 
general law of providing food still exists, but as a law it 
is not intended to embrace a case where the fulfilling of 
the letter of the law would defeat the very aim and pur- 
pose of the law. The purpose of the law is the preser- 
vation of the lives of the children. This end is to be 
attained under the present circumstances by depriving 
them of food. 

353. Q. Is every right and duty ultimately reducible 
to the natural law? 

A. Yes; every right and duty must be ultimately 
reducible to the natural law, in the sense of such right 
or duty being the will of the Creator prohibiting, com- 
manding, counselling, or permitting. For if it were 
against the will of the Creator, it could not be a real 
right or duty. 

The complicated circumstances of human life some- 
times make it difficult to trace back to the natural law 
certain rights and duties, through the multiplying rela- 
tions of men during long centuries. It is this that has 
caused, for instance, so many disputes about the origi- 
nal title to the right of property in land. 

354. Q. Does difficulty in the execution sometimes 
exempt from the fulfilment of duty? That is to say, do 
all laws bind under whatever degree of difficulty we may 
experience in the observance of them? Or, if they do 



COLLISION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 



117 



not so bind, how can we determine the degree of difficulty 
in the execution to which the lawgiver may be reasonably 
judged not to extend the obligation imposed by the law? 

A. This is a matter which requires a great deal of 
prudence ; for there is question of interpreting the mind 
of the legislator in many circumstances when the legis- 
lator himself cannot be appealed to. 

Without doubt, no law can embrace an impossible 
case. Law comes from intelligence; and intelligence 
cannot command an impossibility. 

On the other hand, the fulfilment of duty imposed by 
law is always attended with some difficulty, with some 
exertion. Hence the mere fact of some difficulty 
attending the performance of what is prescribed does 
not at once and universally put it outside the scope of 
the law. 

But between impossibility and ordinary exertion, 
ordinary difficulty attending any exertion, there are 
many grades of difficulty. 

Our common prudence will tell us that a slight head- 
ache which might excuse a man from keeping a very 
insignificant engagement will not excuse him from going 
to the top of his house to take down his little boy, who, 
if left there, will very probably roll off into the street. 

The constant exercise of prudence in particular cases, 
and the practice of studious inquiry when there is a 
doubt, are the best means of developing a habit of cor- 
rect judgment in regard to the degree of difficulty in 
execution intended by the mind of the legislator. 

It is to be noted, however, that the negative precepts 
of the natural law bind all men at all times and under 
all circumstances. There is no degree of difficulty in 
abstention which will authorize any one to put an act 
forbidden by the natural law. 



CHAPTER XII. VINDICATION OF RIGHTS. 



Vindication — Perfect Rights — Repelling the Aggressor — 
The Use of Force — The Rule of Defence — Reparation 
of an Injury — The Use of Force — Appeal to Authority. 

335. Q. What is meant by the expression, "vindica- 
tion of a right"? 

A. It stands both for the protection of a right against 
an aggressor and for the exacting of reparation from 
one who has violated a right. 

356. Q. Which rights are accompanied by the right 
of vindication? 

A. Those rights which are called perfect; that is, 
those whose violation constitutes an injury in the strict 
sense. 

357. Q. How may these rights be classified? 

A. They may be classified as right to property, right 
to reputation, and right to life and bodily safety. 

Right belongs to a person. A person is physical or 
moral; that is, an individual or a society. We shall speak 
of the invidual only. The question of the individual 
being once established, we can readily infer the right of 
a society of individuals, of a family, a city, a state. To 
proceed gradually, we ask first — 

358. Q. Is it at all lawful to repel an unjust ag- 
gressor ? 

A. Yes. We have for this the unanimous consent 

118 



VINDICATION OF RIGHTS. 



119 



of all mankind and of all civil legislators. Cicero in his 
defence of Milo says upon the subject: "This is not 
a written law, but a natural law ; we do not learn it, for 
we are born with it; we are not taught it, for we are 
endowed with the knowledge of it. . . . Nature has 
proclaimed it. . . 

Moreover, nature ordains society amongst men. But 
society is impossible without the means of securing 
peace. Hence, nature grants the right to the means 
necessary to secure peace. Now, one necessary means 
is the right to repel an unjust aggressor. For if wicked 
men might not be frustrated in their attempts at crime, 
all peace would be at an end ; society could not exist. 

359. Q. In repelling an unjust aggressor, is it lawful 
to use necessary force which may result in damage to 
him? 

A. Yes. We have for this, again, the universal con- 
sent of all mankind and of all civil legislators. 

Besides, it is seldom possible to repel an aggressor 
without inflicting some damage upon him. Hence, if 
the natural law did not allow us to run the risk of this 
consequence, our right of repelling an aggressor would 
be illusory. It would be no right at all. 

Again, the natural law is just. Now, when there is 
an attack, either the aggressor or the one attacked must 
suffer; and we cannot suppose the natural law to be 
on the side of the aggressor, and against the peaceful 
defender. 

360. Q. What must be observed in the defence? 

A. He who defends himself must have a just inten- 
tion; that is, his intention must be simply to defend his 
right. He must not inflict damage through vengeance, 
but merely as a necessary means of defence. If, for 



120 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



instance, to defend his property, a blow will suffice, 
it will not be lawful for him to mutilate. 

There must, also, be a proportion between the injury 
repulsed and the damage done in repulsing it. To 
defend a dollar or recover possession of it, killing or 
cutting, as being out of all proportion with the injury, 
would, certainly, be unlawful. 

361. Q. When the injury has been completed, when 
we have been maimed, or defamed, or robbed, have we 
a right to demand complete reparation for the injury? 

A. Certainly. The violation of a right does not de- 
stroy the right. Because a man steals your watch it 
does not cease to be yours. 

362. 0. But may physical force be employed, if 
necessary, to secure this reparation, to recover the 
exercise of the right? 

A. Yes. For, as the right has not been lost, it is 
perfectly lawful to use the means necessary to secure its 
exercise, provided such means be in themselves lawful 
and violate no right of another. But the use of neces- 
sary force to recover the exercise of a right is no more 
unlawful than the use of force to defend a right that is 
attacked. Moreover, it violates no right of another. If 
it violated the right of any one, it would violate the right 
of the one who has done the injury. And if it violated 
any right of his, this would be his right to continue the 
injury which he has done. But he has acquired no 
right to continue the injury. The mere fact of his hav- 
ing done the injury does not create in him a right to 
perpetuate it. Hence neither does it even justify him 
in defending himself against you when you proceed to 
recover what you have lost. If he puts himself in your 
way, he undertakes to stand the consequences. 



VINDICATION OF RIGHTS. 



121 



363. Q. May every individual, therefore, at all times 
and under all circumstances, undertake, by personal 
force, the vindication of his right which another has 
violated ? 

A. No. In a constituted civil society the individual 
may not take the matter into his own hands to settle 
it by means of his own personal physical force. He 
must have recourse to the authorities established in 
the society for the vindication of violated rights. Of 
course, there are certain cases in which the established 
authorities may be powerless to act by the regular 
methods, and in these cases the society authorizes the 
individual to act for himself. Thus, if a man seizes 
your watch whilst you are walking along a dark and 
lonely street, you are authorized to seize him, in turn, 
and recover your watch. But the rule is that when the 
case comes within the action of the civil power, this 
power must be appealed to as the constituted guardian 
of the rights of the citizens. 

The reason of this is sufficiently evident and is fully 
appreciated by all who live in civil society. If every 
man were allowed in all circumstances to undertake the 
personal vindication of his violated rights, there would 
be an end to all peace and security in society. Men 
prejudiced in their own favor might readily attack their 
neighbors who were really in the right. Many, using the 
advantage of might or of an obscure case, would do so 
under a false plea. Numbers, again, through anger and 
vengeance, would take greater compensation than was 
due to them. And not a few, through the same motives, 
would use more violence than necessary, or use it when 
it might not be necessary at all. Thus society would be 
delivered up to terrorism and bloodshed. Hence, the 



122 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



law of nature, urging men to live together in society, 
demands the establishment in that society of an author- 
ity to which those who think they are injured may ap- 
peal, — an authority which shall inquire into the injury 
and its authors and bring about reparation without re- 
spect of persons. 



CHAPTER XIII. ARGUMENT OF THE 
WORK. 



The purpose of this work on the fundamental ethics 
has been to treat, from a philosophical standpoint, the 
basis of correct human conduct. To accomplish this 
purpose, therefore, it was necessary to begin with the 
conclusions of the sound, universal, common-sense phi- 
losophy regarding man. Some of these conclusions are 
given in the first article. Out of these conclusions, by 
a questioning analysis, we deduce the principles that pre- 
side over human activity. 

There are two philosophical conclusions which taken 
together seem to form a paradox, and yet which must 
enter in combination into every ethical solution. They 
are these: — 

(1) Man is free; that is, he has the physical power 
to will a thing, not to will it, or to will the opposite. 

(2) Man, as a created being, is dependent in his entire 
being upon his Creator; hence, even in the use of his 
free power of willing, he is subject to the will of his 
Creator. 

Everything in creation has its own peculiar nature. 
Hence it is the will of the Creator, who made things 
what they are, that they should act according to their 
nature. Man is intelligent and free. Hence it is for 
him to act with liberty according to intelligence. If 

123 



124 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



knowledge or free will be absent from his act, this act 
will not be a human act. 

The object which serves as suitable material for the 
natural activity of any being is called the "good" of 
that being. The purpose for which a being exists, and 
which it may reach by the exercise of its natural activity, 
is called the end of that being. The object which will 
supply material for the utmost capacity for action of a 
being is called the highest good of that being. Action, 
also, upon such object, will constitute the last end of 
that being. 

Every being in creation has an innate tendency to 
action upon its own peculiar good. Beings that have 
not intelligence and free-will act by necessity. They 
cannot set to themselves a purpose. The free intelli- 
gent being, man, can set to himself a purpose and select 
means to the end. He may choose a good and an end 
which, being only a good and an end of a part of him, 
and being chosen out of time and without regard to the 
natural subordination of that part to the entire person- 
ality of the man, may be in opposition to the real end 
of the man, and be not good, but bad, for the entire per- 
sonality taken as a unit. However, even when man 
thus chooses what is evil, he does not select it under the 
aspect in which it is evil. He tries to blind himself to 
this view and to bring out, in strong light, the phase 
in which it is seen as partial good. Thus it is that, 
though man's perfect happiness can consist only in the 
highest exercise of his distinctive powers of intelligence 
and will upon his highest good, and though he has 
an innate tendency to perfect happiness, still he does 
choose deliberately that which is evil for himself as 
man. 



ARGUMENT OF THE WORK. 



125 



In Articles 4 and 5 of Chapter II. we considered the 
element of the voluntary in the human act and the cir- 
cumstances that can affect the voluntary in an act. 
Then in discussing the action of the human will upon 
those objects that can come under its free appetition, 
we saw that the terms moral good and moral evil were 
applied to such things as should or should not respec- 
tively be made the object of the free choice of the will, 
as being respectively in or out of keeping with the 
reaching of the last end and the highest good of 
the entire personality of the man taken as a unit. 
The morality of a human act, therefore, is the right 
direction of that act towards man's highest good. There 
are some acts that are in themselves good, and others 
that are in themselves bad. There are some acts which 
are in themselves indifferent. In determining the mo- 
rality of an act, we must consider the nature of the act, 
that is the final purpose of the will; also the nature of 
all acts directed to that purpose, and the circumstances 
of all these acts. The act will be morally bad if a single 
bad element enters. A good end will never justify a 
bad means. 

The voluntary act, only, is imputable to the free agent, 
as of this alone does he adopt the responsibility, what- 
ever such responsibility may be. 

The moral order — that is, the order which is in keep- 
ing with the nature of things, and which man can by 
his free will disturb — becomes obligatory upon a free 
will when its observance is imposed by one having power 
to bind that free will. The observance which, before, 
was befitting as being according to the nature of things, 
now becomes law as being imposed by the will of the 
superior. 



126 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



The binding force of a law is measured by the power 
of the superior to bind, and by his will in the concrete 
case to use that power. The power to bind the human 
will belongs to the Creator of the human will. 

The term, law, is employed to express, not an isolated 
precept given to an individual; but it is reserved to 
indicate precepts that affect whole classes of individuals. 
A command given to an individual is called a precept. 
Precept is also often used to signify the separate enact- 
ments of a code of laws. Thus we speak of the pre- 
cepts of the natural law. 

The natural law is the body of precepts which are 
founded on the nature of things, and which tend to the 
natural perfection of man. The existence of the natu- 
ral law has been recognized by all men, and is readily 
known in its more general precepts. It is a divine, eter- 
nal law, and is promulgated by reason to the will of 
man. That is to say, it is discoverable by reason which 
sees its precepts to be according to the nature of things, 
and, hence, to be according to the will of the Creator of 
all. Though it is often called the law of reason, reason 
is not the law, nor can reason make a law\ Law arises 
from a will, and from the will of one w T ho is the superior 
of the person for whom the law is made. From this is 
seen the insufficiency of the doctrine of Kant for the 
efficiency of law. 

It is the will of the lawgiver that binds the free will 
of man. Man is left with the physical power to disobey, 
but he is under obligation not to disobey. 

The most general precept of the natural law may be 
expressed in these words, "Do good and avoid evil." 

Some precepts of the natural law T are more readily 
inferred from the nature of things than are others. 



ARGUMENT OF THE WORK. 



127 



The precepts of the natural law are either affirmative 
or negative. The negative precepts bind all men always 
and at all times. The affirmative precepts do not call 
for direct positive exercise at every moment. 

There is a sanction for the natural law; a reward for 
its observance, and a punishment for its violation. Rea- 
son teaches this; and it teaches, moreover, that the 
sanction must extend beyond the present life. The fact 
of the sanction has been recognized by all peoples, just 
as all peoples have recognized the existence of the natu- 
ral law. 

Positive law is distinguished from the natural law 
as being law that depends upon the free will of the 
legislator. Natural law must be imposed. Any given 
positive law, considered in itself, need not be imposed. 
Positive law is called divine or human according as 
the legislator is, respectively, God or man. All purely 
human laws are positive laws. A positive law may 
never be in opposition to the natural law which is 
essential. When a human so-called law is found to 
be in opposition to the certain natural law, such so- 
called positive law is no law at all. It is null and void* 
and to follow it is to violate the unchangeable natural 
law. 

The name, moral conscience, is employed to signify- 
that act of the mind which declares a given law to be 
binding in a given case. This judgment is always, at 
least implicity, the conclusion of an argument. When 
the conclusion is true and correctly drawn, the judg- 
ment is a true conscience; when the conclusion is false, 
the judgment is a false conscience. Culpability in 
acting upon a false conscience depends upon the culpa- 
bility of the ignorance involved. The judgment of 



128 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



conscience may be followed — and then only — when we 
have moral certainty of its truth. Moral certainty is 
such as excludes a prudent doubt. Whenever there is 
a prudent doubt about the lawfulness of an act, we must 
investigate the case before putting the act. If after 
having made the investigation befitting the gravity of 
the case we find ourselves still in dobut, we may — 
observing the very important restriction mentioned on 
page 79 — conclude that the law, if there be any in 
the matter, has not been sufficiently promulgated, and 
hence has not yet its binding force. The important 
restriction refers to obligations of justice, charity, and 
religion which we know to be certain and whose fulfil- 
ment we may not imperil by acting upon a doubt which 
still remains after a prudent investigation. Thus, for 
instance, I have been depositing money in my friend's 
safe, and I doubt whether a certain sum there is mine. 
My friend says that it is not mine. Nevertheless, I 
have a very serious doubt; and my doubt remains after 
investigation. I may not take the money ; for my obliga- 
tion of justice to my friend is something that is positively 
certain; and my taking of the money may imperil the 
fulfilment of this most certain obligation. Mere feel- 
ings are not conscience. Conscience is a matter of intel- 
lect, and hence is susceptible of being developed to a high 
degree of acuteness in discrimination and of rapidity in 
action. 

The passions are not in themselves evil. They may 
be used for evil ; but their purpose is to serve us as 
aids in the observance of the moral order. They are 
the capacities our sensitive nature possesses of being 
roused upon the apprehension of good or evil. They 
correspond in the sensitive order to the various attitudes 



ARGUMENT OF THE WORK. 



129 



which the spiritual will can assume towards good and 
evil. Thus, when our sensitive nature is brought into 
play in harmony with the line of action adopted by the 
spiritual will, the work of the will is lightened because 
passion overrides the sluggishness of the body which 
might oppose itself to the will's commands ; and, besides, 
the effort is intensified, since soul and body are stirred 
up to action. The passions, by a misuse of terms, are 
very commonly called bad. This comes from the fact 
that very many persons too often take passion instead 
of reason for their guide. 

Other aids that we may employ for the better ob- 
servance of the moral order, are habits. A habit is the 
ease and inclination for a certain act which is acquired 
by the frequent repetition of that act. The habit of 
a good act is styled a virtue. The habit of a bad act is 
styled a vice. Four wide-reaching virtues, called cardi- 
nal virtues, preside over the movements of a thoroughly 
upright life. 

There are two chief classes of errors to be guarded 
against by the student of the principles of ethics: errors 
that ascribe the perception of morality to the wrong 
faculty, and errors that start upon a false definition of 
morality. 

The meaning of the word, right, as opposed to duty, 
is different from the meaning of the word, right, as 
opposed to wrong. Our duties are our obligations. Our 
rights are the liberties left to us outside of our duties. 
Duties are moral obligations; that is to say, they rest 
upon the free will, leaving it, nevertheless, with the 
physical power not to conform to the obligation. We 
can learn our duties by studying the nature of man and 
the essential relations of his status in the creation. Rights 



130 



FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS. 



and duties are correlative things. They are both based 
upon law. 

Rights are innate or acquired, alienable or inalienable 
Duties are natural or positive, affirmative or negative. 
Rights and duties are perfect and imperfect. A <\is- 
tinction is made between an injury and an offence. The 
motive of a duty is the reason why the law imposes the 
duty. The title to a right is the reason why the law 
confers the right. 

Though sometimes there may seem to be a contradic- 
tion between two laws, rights, or duties, we shall find, 
upon consideration, that, practically, there can be no 
real collision. We shall find that one of the rights, 
laws, or duties is real, and that the other is only ap- 
parent. When, in the case of an apparent collision, we 
wish to discover which of the two rights or duties is 
real, and which of the two laws really extends to the 
matter in question, w r e must take into consideration the 
order of the apparently conflicting laws, the motives of 
the duties, the title to the rights, and the matter, subject, 
and term of both rights and duties. The expression, 
"suspension of law," is, like "collision," a convenience of 
speech. Great prudence is often required to determine 
the degree of difficulty in execution under which a law 
is intended to bind. 

The vindication of perfect rights is a lawful proceed- 
ing. This vindication may be of two kinds. It may 
be simply to defend a right by repelling an unjust ag- 
gressor, or it may be to recover a right that has al- 
ready been violated. Speaking in general, force may be 
used in both cases. In repelling the unjust aggressor, 
certain rules of defence must be observed. In a con- 
stituted civil society an individual may not — except 



ARGUMENT OF THE WORK. 



131 



in a few obvious cases — take into his own hands the 
vindication by force of a right that has been violated. 
He must have recourse to the authorities established in 
that society for the vindication of violated rights. 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX 



NUMBERS REFER TO PAGES. 



Abhorrence, 84. 

Act, human (see Human act) ; 
of man, 20, 21 ; voluntary and 
involuntary, 31 ; free and vol- v 
untary, distinction, 33, 34; 
commanded, 32, 33, 39; mor- 
ally good and bad, 41, 42; 
materially and formally bad, 
47; indifferent, 48; when at- 
tributable, when imputable, 
50 ; and habit, 86. 

Action, subordination in modes 
of, proper resultant of, 24; 
spontaneous, 30. 

Aggressor, repelling unjust, 
Cicero on unjust, damage to, 
118, 119. 

Aids to moral order, 81 sq., 
86 sq. 

Anger, 86. 

Apparent good, 24, 29. 
Atheist and obligation, 64. 
Aversion, an elicited act, 33. 

Bonum, summum, 18. 

Cardinal virtues, why so 

called, 87. 

Certainty, moral, 77; required 
in moral conscience, how ob- 
tained, 77. 

Cicero on unjust aggressor, 
119. 

Circumstances, as determinants 
of morality, 45, 46; relevant, 
irrelevant, 46; aggravating, 
extenuating, specifying, 47. 



Claim, 103, 104. 

Coercion, and rights, 97. 

Collision, of rights, duties, and 
laws, not real, 106; of nat- 
ural laws, of natural and 
positive laws, 107, 108; sum- 
mary of cases of, between 
unequal rights, duties, and 
laws, 109-111; general prin- 
ciples for solution of cases 
of, 112. 

Command, 65. 

Commanded act, 32, 33. 

Conscience, moral, it is a con- 
clusion, how arrived at, 75 ; 
rapid through habit, true, 
false, culpability in false, 76; 
demands moral certainty, 77 ; 
if invincibly and inculpably 
erroneous, 77 ; and doubt, 77 ; 
education of, 80; not feel- 
ings, 80. 

Content, an elicited act, 34. 
Courage, 85. 

Creation, importance of fact in 
ethics, 14; there is a purpose 
in, final purpose of whole, 
purpose of each part, how 
this latter is obtained, 14, 15, 
17. 

Creator, 12; and endless ten- 
dency, 23 ; his purpose, 30 ; 
his external glory and the 
happiness of man, 30. 

Daring, 85. 

Decalogue, 63. 



133 



134 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX 



Defence, rule of, 119. 
Delight, 84. 

Desire, 84; an elicited act, 33; 
in morality, 47, 48. 

Despair, 85 ; an elicited act, 33. 

Determinants of morality, 45. 

Doubt, examination in, fruit- 
less examination in, restric- 
tion of liberty in, 77-80. 

Duties and rights, 94; correla- 
tive, 95 ; based on natural 
law, 96, 116. 

Duties, study of important, 
how learned, 95 ; what are, 
source of, classification of, 
natural, positive, negative, 
affirmative, 101 ; motive of, 
102; perfect, imperfect, judi- 
cial, 103, 104; violation of, 
threefold term of man's, 104, 
105; collision of, 106; degree 
of difficulty in observance of, 
116. 

Elicited act, 32, 33. 

End, immediate, of the crea- 
ture, 17; and nature of 
things, 17; proximate, ulti- 
mate, intermediate, 18; spe- 
cial proximate, 24; last, 26; 
last and happiness, 27; last 
not riches, 27; not honor, not 
science, not pleasure, not 
even virtue, 28 ; end does not 
justify means, 45. 

Errors regarding fundamental 
ethics, 90. 

Ethics, a science, its founda- 
tion truths, sound metaphys- 
ics its basis, 11 ; treated from 
the standpoint of natural 
knowledge, 12 ; keynote of, 
13; errors regarding funda- 
mental, 90. 

Evil never chosen as evil, how 
chosen, 25 (see Good and 
Evil). 

Examination in doubt, 77-80. 



Faculties, veracity of know- 
ing, 11, 12; each faculty has 
its peculiar good, each is for 
the man and should be sub- 
ordinated in its exercise to 
the human act, 18, 19; the 
will a blind, 23. 

Fear, 85 ; and the voluntary, 
35, 38; and imputability, 51. 

Feelings, not conscience, 80. 

Force, and the voluntary, 39; 
and imputability, 51 ; to re- 
pair injury, 120 

Fortitude, 87, 88. 

Freedom, physical, 53, 94; obli- 
gation and physical, moral, 
61. 

Free will (see Will). 

Good and Evil, some things in 
themselves, unfailing stand- 
ard of, how it is found, 13, 
14 ; and right and w T rong, 14 ; 
in that which is chosen, 14; 
and morality, 41 ; man, moral 

— characterizing the man, 41, 
42; moral — , and the nature 
of things, and the last end, 
and the highest good, and 
perfect happiness, 42, 43 ; 
moral — , how far imputable, 
51 ; disputes about, 64. 

Good of a power, 18; highest, 
18, 25, 26; — of a faculty 
subordinated to — of the 
man, 19 ; partial, 22, 24 ; — 
partial as chosen by the will, 

— that is detrimental, — of 
human being, — of reason, 
22 ; — of reason, how attain- 
able, 23 ; — of will, 23 ; — of 
person, 23, 24; true and ap- 
parent — •, 24, 25, 29 ; subordi- 
nation of — , 25 ; suitable — , 
26 ; highest — and happiness, 
highest — not riches, not 
honor, not science, not pleas- 
ure, not virtue, what is high- 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX 



135 



est — , there can be but one 
highest— 27, 28, 29; high- 
est — and moral — , 43. 
God, existence of — to be rec- 
ognized in ethics, 11, 12; — 
wills us to choose good and 
to reject evil, will of — is 
law, 13 ; — and human rights, 
105. 

Habit, voluntary in the — , 40; 

— and animal, — and man, 
morally good and bad — , 44 ; 

— of knowledge, 62 ; the 
name—, — and power and 
act, how formed, 86; moral 
and imputable — , 87. 

Happiness, perfect — , — the 
perfection of human nature, 
standard of — — desired by 
all, — the object of the in- 
evitable tendency, perfect — 
cannot be absolutely rejected, 
26; perfect — attainable, but 
not in this life, and must be 
perpetual, and its permanency 
must be known, object of — , 
27; where attainable, 28; one 
object suffices, and is neces- 
sary, how this is attainable, 
29; — and the order of na- 
ture, 29; partial— 29; — 
and the purpose of the Crea- 
tor, 30 ; — and good and evil, 
43. 

Hatred, 84. 

Hindrances to observance of 
moral order, 81 sq., 86 sq. 

Honor, is not the last end or 
highest good, 28. 

Hope, 85 ; an elicited act, 33. 

Human act, 19, 20, 30; —im- 
plies knowledge and free 
will, 20; distinguished from 
act of the man, 20, 21 ; pur- 
pose in — , 21. 

Human Being, can act against 
his own nature, 15; good of 
— 22; — characterized by 



reason and free will, 22. 
Human nature and perfect hap- 
piness, 26. 

Ignorance, 24 ; — and the vol- 
untary, 35 ; vincible and in- 
vincible — , 35; effect of vin- 
cible — on an act, 36 ; vinci- 
ble — affected and slothful, 
37; vincible — and imputa- 
bility, 51. 

Indirect voluntary, 32. 

Injury, 104 ; — repaired by force, 
120. 

Instinct, 31. 

Intellect distinguishes morality, 
50. 

Intention in morality, 47, 48. 
Involuntary act, 31 ; — lacks 
knowledge or free will, 31. 

Joy, 84. 

Justice, a cardinal virtue, 87; 
limited meaning of — , 89. 

Kant, and independent mor- 
ality, 58; his theory elim- 
inates law, correction needed, 
59; — and rationalism, 61. 

Keynote of ethics, 13. 

Knowledge, habitual, 63. 

Law, rule for human will a — , 
11; how it binds, 52; moral 
— , measure of its binding 
force, rule and precept, char- 
acters of — , 52, 53 ; violation 
of — , when imputable, 54 ; — 
demands distinction of per- 
sons, 59; obligation supposes 
— , 62; sanction of — (see 
Sanction) ; positive — (see 
Postive) ; collision of — (see 
Collision); suspension of — , 
115; — and difficulty of ob- 
servance, 116; natural — (see 
Natural Law). 

Life, relation of present to fu- 
ture, 29. 



136 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX 



Logic, truths proved in, 12. 
Love, 84; an elicited act, 33. 

Man, finite and composite, has 
body and soul, has reason 
and free will by which he is 
to be governed, is free and 
responsible, is a unit, when 
does he act according to his 
nature, 11, 12, 16; has animal 
and spiritual faculties, 18; 
can set himself a purpose, 
20; purpose of his existence, 
30 ; — in the order of nature, 
a created being, a part of the 
created universe, faculties of 
— , relations of — , 42, 43 ; 
good and bad for — , 43 ; es- 
sential relations of — , 64. 

Matter of a right, 98. 

Means, 18; — not justified by 
the end, 45. 

Metaphysics, truths proved in, 
12. 

Moral, the word, 44 ; — philos- 
ophy, 44; — sense, 50; — 
conscience, 75 sq. ; — order 
and aids and hindrances to, 
81 sq. ; — habit, 87 ; — power, 
94 ; — obligation, 94 ; — per- 
son, 118. 

Morality, 41 ; determinants of 
— , 44; chief determinant of 
— , 45 ; in the intention, 47, 
48; not a matter of opinion, 
— and civil laws, and athe- 
ism and materialism and pan- 
theism, and indifferent act, 
49; — distinguished by the 
intellect, 50; independent — , 
58; errors regarding defini- 
tion and perception of, — , 90. 

Motive of a duty, 102. 

Natural law, 54; is recognized 
by human race, is readily 
known in general precepts, 
special testimony to its ex- 



istence, it is divine, 55 ; — is 
not reason, 58; why called 
the law of reason, is pro- 
claimed by reason, 60, 61; 
knowledge of — , fundamen- 
tal precepts of — are known 
directly and easily, immedi- 
ate and remote conclusions 
of — , 63 ; first principle of — , 
64; affirmative and negative 
precepts of — , 65 ; sanction 
of — , 66; partial and com- 
plete sanction of — , 67 ; per- 
fect sanction of — known, 
and to be found in another 
life, 68; — and positive law, 
70-72 ; summary on — , 73 ; 
how differs from positive 
law, how enforced by positive 
law, 74. 

Nature of things, study of nec- 
essary in ethics, 14; — and 
right and wrong, 16; — and 
end, 17. 

Nature, order of — , how this 
is contributed to and how 
acted against, 15. 

Obligation, 60 ; — leaves phys- 
ical freedom, 61 ; — and ra- 
tionalism, 61 ; proceeds from 
law, 63 ; — and atheism, 64 ; 
moral — , 94. 

Offence, 104. 

Opinion does not make right 
and wrong, 49. 

Order of nature, 15; moral — , 
aids and hindrances to ob- 
servance of moral — , 81 sq. 

Passion and the choice of 
evil, bd. 

Passions, the, what are, — not 
evil, may be misused, 81, 82; 
how — are an aid, why wrong 
to follow — , how passions 
are independent of the will, 
— not our guide, why — are 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX 



137 



called bad, 82, 83 ; number of 
— , primary — , 83-85. 

Person, good of, 23 ; individ- 
ual and moral — , 118. 

Pleasure, not the last end or 
the highest good, 28. 

Positive law, basis of, Creator 
and — , divine and human — , 
ultimate basis of human — , 
certain applications of natu- 
ral law determined by — , 69- 
71 ; presupposes natural law, 
cannot conflict with natural 
law, human — may not be 
imposed through caprice, hu- 
man — and invincible igno- 
rance, 71-73 ; differs from 
natural, sometimes enforces 
natural law, 74. 

Positivism, 91. 

Power, moral, 94. 

Prejudice and the choice of 
evil, 24. 

Prohibition, 65. 

Prudence, 87, 88. 

Purpose of will, 21 ; common 
purpose of will, 22. 

Rationalism and obligation, 

61. 

Reason, to govern man, 16; — 
characterizes human being, 
22 ; the good of — and how 
attainable, 22, 23 ; — pro- 
claims the natural law, 61. 

Relations, essential — of man, 
64, 95. 

Revelation, supernatural not 
brought in, 12. 

Riches, not the last end or 
highest good, 27. 

Right, as opposed to wrong and 
as opposed to duty, 93. 

Right and Wrong, rule of — , 
11, 14; standard of — , 13; — 
and good and evil, 14; — are 
in the act of the will, 14; — 
and the nature of things, and 



reason, and free will, 16; ■ — 
not a mere matter of opin- 
ion, 49 ; disputes about — , 64. 
Rights, and power of coercion, 
97 ; — may not be pursued by 
evil means, are morally in- 
violable though physically 
impeded, are moral powers, 
97, 98; subject, term, matter, 
and title of — , — of de- 
mented persons, 98; innate, 
acquired, alienable, inalien- 
able — , 98-100; perfect, im- 
perfect, purely moral — , 103, 
104; collision of — not real, 
106; vindication of — , classi- 
fication of perfect — , 118; — 
not destroyed by violation, 
120. 

Rights and duties, 94; — are 
correlative, 95 ; — are based 
on natural law, 96, 116. 

Rule of right and wrong, 11; 
— for human will is a law, 
12. 

Rules, two guiding — , 25. 

Sadness, 85; — is an elicited 
act,33. 

Sanction, of law and of natu- 
ral law, 66 ; — follows viola- 
tion of natural law naturally, 
partial and complete — , 67; 
Creator and — of the natural 
law, — is in privation and 
punishment, — is just, 68, 69. 

Science is not the last end or 
the highest good, 28. 

Sense, moral, 50. 

Sensism, 91. 

Sensualism, 91. 

Sentimentalism, 90. 

Sin, philosophical, 59 ; theolo- 
gical, 60. 

Society, ordained by nature, 
119; peace in — , 119; — as- 
sumes vindication of violated 
rights, 121. 



138 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX 



Soul, immortality of, 11, 12. 

Spontaneous action, 30. 

Standard, of right and wrong, 
of good and evil, 13; how 
found, 14; — of happiness, 
26. 

Subject of a right, 98. 
Summum bonum, 18. 
Superior, and the force of law, 
53. 

Suspension of law, 115. 
System of the universe, 15 ; 
harmony with the — , 25. 

Temperance, a cardinal virtue, 
87, 88; limited application of 
the term, 89. 

Tendency, endless, inevitable, 
innate, 23 ; natural resultant 
of — , specific — , 25 ; inev- 
itable — and happiness, 26; 
— not towards the unattain- 
able, 27. 

Term, of a right, 98; — of duty 
is threefold, 104. 

Title of a right, 98, 102. 

True good, 24, 29. 

Truth is the good of reason, 
how, 22, 23. 



Universe, system of 15, 25. 
Utilitarianism, 91, 92. 

Vice, 87. 

Vindication, of a right is lim- 
ited to the perfect right, 118; 



— of a violated right to be 
left to the authority in so- 
ciety, 121. 

Violence and voluntary, 35 
(see Force). 

Virtual voluntary, 32. 

Virtue, is not the last or high- 
est good, 28; what is — , car- 
dinal — , 87 sq. 

Voluntary act, requires knowl- 
edge and free will, approval 
and reluctance in — , 31 ; elic- 
ited and commanded — , indi- 
rect and virtual — , degrees 
in — , 32 ; — and free act, 33 ; 
circumstances affecting the 
— , 35 ; — and habit, 40 sq. 

Will, human, liberty of, rule 
for — is law, how — is sub- 
ject to law, — to be used ac- 
cording to reason for the 
government of man, 11-13, 
16; — acts for a purpose, 
may have various subordi- 
nated purposes, 21 ; common 
purpose of — , — proposes 
some good of the person, 22. 

Will, choosing partial good, — 
characterizes human being, 
22; good of the — , the — a 
blind faculty, 23; — and 
the voluntary, 31 ; — physi- 
cally free, 53; — subject to 
Creator, 53 ; — and passions, 
82; exercise of — limited by 
law. 

Wrong (see Right and Wrong). 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Dec. 2004 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



